liii 

iiii 




liiilii' 



iiijf 




iillrERsus 





Class 






Book * r ,!r>'3 



&)P)T!ghtK° 



CiJFjHRIGHT DEPOSm 



DEMOCEACT versus AUTOCEACI 

A CO:VIPARATIVE STUDY OF 

GOVERNIVIENTS IN THE 

WORLD WAR 



BY 

KARL FREDERICK GEISER, Ph.D. 

PEOFE^OR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
IN OBERTiTN COLLEGE 



D. C. HEATH & CO., PUBLISHERS 

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO 






Copyright, 1918 
By D. C. Heath & Co. 

I K 8 



DEC 21 1918 
©CU511011 



Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind! 
Brightest in dungeons. Liberty! thou art. 
For there thy habitation is the heart — 
The heart which love of thee alone can bind; 
And when thy sons to fetters are consign'd — 
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom. 
Their country conquers with their martyrdom, 
And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind. 

— Byron, Sonnet on ChilUm 



m 



PREFACE 

This little book has been prepared primarily to meet 
the needs of the government requirements in the War 
Aims Com*ses now given in American colleges and mii- 
versities. It has also been written with a view to stimu- 
lating in the general reader a greater interest, a clearer 
understanding, and a greater love and enthusiasm for the 
democratic ideals of government. The World War has 
familiarized us with such terms as "democracy," "autoc- 
racy," "parhamentary systems," "responsible govern- 
ment," "seK-de termination," the "small state," and 
many other similar expressions. My own experience and 
observation in teaching government for nearly a score of 
years convinces me, how^ever, that such terms convey 
very httle meaning to the average individual, including 
the coUege graduate. The great need of the hour in the 
"campaign of education" that is now going on is a more 
careful examination of the terms of the problems we 
propose to solve. I have therefore attempted to make 
these chapters in a very real sense a study of poUtical 
ideals, terms, and types of institutions rather than a 
mere collection of miscellaneous and interesting facts 
proportioned among the states according to their general 
importance. I have assumed a knowledge of our own 
government and have taken England, France, and Italy 



vi PREFACE 

as representatives of the parliamentary and responsible 
systems; Germany as representing autocracy in its most 
efficient, and therefore most dangerous, form; Austria- 
Hungary as the great pohtical complex out of which have 
come many of the problems — and indeed the very causes 
— of the World War, and the discussion of which will 
surely occupy much time at the coming peace conference. 
Belgium stands as an example of the ideal small state 
for which the democracies are fighting, while Brazil is 
selected as typical of the most progressive of the South 
American republics. 

The bibliography at the end of the volume has been 
added with a view to furnishing a minimum number of 
references to works accessible in most libraries or procur- 
able at a small investment. 

I am indebted to Dean Guy Stanton Ford of the Com- 
mittee on Public Information, Washington, D. C, for sug- 
gestions concerning the plan out of which this book has 
grown and especially to the scholarly advice and help of 
Dr. Kenneth W. Colegrove of Syracuse University both 
while the manuscript was being prepared and the proof- 
sheets corrected. 

KARL FREDERICK GEISER 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

November 6, 1918 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Introduction 1 

Determining Principles 3 

n. Co]MPARATIVE GOVERNMENT 7 

Presidential System 7 

Tlie American Government 7 

Parliamentary Governments 8 

The English Government 8 

The Government of France 15 

The Government of Italy 20 

in. The Government of Germany 26 

IV. Austria-Hungary 36 

The History of Austria 37 

Titles of Austrian Rulers 40 

The History of Hungary 41 

The Compromise of 1867 45 

V. Austria-Hungary: Government of To-day 47 

The Common Government 47 

The Government of Austria 50 

Provmcial and Local Government ... 55 

vii 



viii CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

The Government of Hungary 5Q 

Provincial and Local Government .... 58 

The Problem of Races in the Dual Monarchy 59 

The Czecho-Slovaks 62 

VI. The Government of Belgium 65 

The History of Belgium, 1579-1914 .... 65 

Government 68 

Justice 72 

Local Government 73 

Area, Population and Language .... 73 

VII. The Government of Brazil 75 

The History of Brazil, 1500-1891 .... 75 

The Constitution 78 

The State Government 79 

The General Government 81 

Population and Resources 84 

Bibliography . 87 

Index 91 



DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 



DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

When President Wilson gave expression to the 
now famous phrase, "We are fighting to make the 
world safe for democracy," he uttered a profound 
truth. He saw in the conflict in which America is 
engaged in association with the Allies, a struggle 
between two political ideals; these two ideals, when 
expressed in form and practice of government, are 
in their nature either monarchic or democratic. 
The one ideal is accepted by Germany; the other 
by the United States; the one means a government 
imposed from above; the other a "government by 
the consent of the governed"; the one means an 
irresponsible autocracy; the other a government 
responsible to the people — a democracy. 

But what, it may be asked, is a democracy .^^ Are 
not all modern governments, of whatever form, ruled 
by public opinion.? Could any ruler in an enlight- 
ened state carry on a government without the con- 
sent, active or passive, of the people forming the 

1 



2 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

state? These are searching questions, and the 
imphcations raised by them should by no means be 
dismissed in a perfunctory manner, for they suggest 
ideas lying at the foundation of the World War. 
No attempt will here be made to discuss all of the 
issues raised by these questions. That is not the 
purpose of this outline, and we merely call attention 
to them in order to define, at the outset, the scope 
and purpose of this study. It may be true that all 
modern states are, in a general sense, governed by 
public opinion, if by that phrase we mean a passive 
popular approval of the existing political order of 
society. And if the issues of the war were merely 
to determine whether political power should hence- 
forth emanate from above or below — from governor 
or governed — the significance of the final outcome 
would not be of transcendent importance; that is 
to say, the direction in which power flows is not in 
itself the significant fact concerning issues between 
states. The significant fact about the source of 
power is this: When political power comes from 
above, it comes from a single source; there is no 
way of restraining it; it is liable to abuse; and it 
always implies a government imposed upon the 
governed from without. Such a government may 
be directed by wise counsel; it may be efficient; 
and may, in a material way, do much for the people; 
but it is not democratic. On the other hand, a 
government in which power emanates from the 



INTRODUCTION 3 

people and is imposed upon themselves by their 
own free choice carries with it its own restrictions 
and is not liable to abuse. Such a government 
may make mistakes — all governments do that. 
It may have faults, but in that case 

" The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. 
But in ourselves, that we are underlings," 

and this is an important fact to keep in mind. 

There is one more question, then, that should be 
asked and answered: Is a democracy the best kind 
of government? Yes. After long experience, after 
all the observations made concerning government 
since man has kept a record of events, it is clear, 
beyond a doubt, that the people themselves know 
best what they want; and they should choose, 
therefore, their own form of government and impose, 
in whatever form and manner they please, their 
own laws. — That is what we mean by a democracy. 

Determining Principles 

Adopting, therefore. President Wilson's phrase 
quoted above as one of our chief war aims, and 
accepting as a definition of democracy the foregoing 
paragraph, it is pertinent to ask to what extent the 
chief European governments associated with us in 
this war are also democratic in form, practice, and 
spirit. That is the question we shall attempt to 
answer. But before doing so it will be well to 



4 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 

summarize certain fundamental principles concern- 
ing government in general : 

1. The character of any government, i.e. whether 
it is democratic or undemocratic, is determined by 
two facts: first, its form, and second, the extent to 
which it is subject to popular control. 

2. The functions of government are twofold — 
the formulation of policy, determined by the legisla- 
tive branch, and the execution of the public will by 
the executive or administrative branch, for the 
judiciary is in the last analysis merely a branch of the 
law-enforcing power. These two functions may be 
united in one authority, as in the earlier despotisms 
of the East, or in two separate and independent 
departments, as in the United States; or they may 
be exercised jointly by the legislative and executive 
branch, as in England, France, and Italy. The 
executive may be called a king, president, cabinet, 
or council — the name is unimportant. The policy- 
determining branch may be called a congress, an 
assembly, a legislature, or a parliament — these are 
mere names for the same idea. The chief fact to be 
kept in mind is that there are two distinct functions 
of government — law-making and law-enforcing — 
and the manner of interaction of these two depart- 
ments and their relation to the people determine 
whether or not a government is really a democracy. 

3. Since all governments are ordered and regu- 
lated by law, whatever the source or nature of that 



DETERMINING PRINCIPLES 5 

law may be, the authority and control of the law- 
making branch will primarily determine the character 
of the government; that is to say, if the legislative 
body is elected by, and continually dependent upon, 
the people, we have one of the chief essentials of a 
democracy. 

4. From the very nature of society, every self- 
governing community forming a sovereign state, 
extending over a wide area, and including a large 
population, must be politically organized into a 
national, general, or central government and into 
local governments. The central government always 
controls the foreign policy; it declares war, makes 
treaties, regulates commerce, and forms all alliances 
with other states. In the consideration of our ques- 
tion this fact must constantly be kept in mind, for 
in the war we have been waging against the central 
powers all considerations of the merits and demerits 
of local government — state or municipal — are 
irrelevant. We have not been waging war against 
the cities of Germany; we have had no concern with 
the government of Hamburg, Leipzig, Stuttgart, or 
Munich. Our sole concern and purpose has been the 
defeat of the military rulers of the central gov- 
ernments of the German and Austro-Hungarian 
Empires. We shall consider, therefore, in our de- 
scription of the English, French, Italian and Ger- 
man systems the nature and character of the general 
or central government and touch upon the local gov- 



6 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

ernments only so far as may be necessary to a 
proper understanding of the general government. 

Applying these general considerations or principles 
to the chief governments of Europe now engaged 
against the central powers, and assuming that each 
government is fighting for its own existence and 
ideals, let us see to what extent, judged from the 
above considerations, each country is fighting for 
democracy. For the American the problem of 
understanding the governments of Europe may 
best be approached through a comparative method, 
beginning with the salient facts of our own govern- 
ment before proceeding to the governments of 
Europe. 



CHAPTER n 

COMPARA.TIVE GOVERNMENT 

Presidential System 

The Ajmerican Goverxment 

The American government differs from nearly all 
other governments in having a written constitution 
superior to, and binding upon, both the legislative 
and executive departments, and in ha^dng an inde- 
pendent federal judiciary clothed with the authority 
of declaring null and void the acts of other depart- 
ments. The Supreme Court is itself, however, 
created by the Constitution, which in turn vests in 
Congress the power of creating inferior courts, so 
even this department is in the last analysis subject 
to popular control. Sovereignty, or final power, 
rests directly with the Constitution, whereas in 
England, and indeed all governments of Europe, 
except Switzerland, sovereignty rests directly with 
the law-making department. "The American Con- 
stitution," says James Bryce, "is the Mvmg voice of 
the people, or the people at their best." With a 
President and both branches of Congress elected by 
the people, §Lnd a fundamental law made and changed 

7 



8 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

by tlie people, and that law binding upon all govern- 
ing authorities, America has, in the best sense of the 
term, a popular or democratic government. 

Parliamentary Governments 

The English Government 

Gladstone said that "the American Constitution 
is the greatest piece of constructive statesmanship 
ever conceived and struck off by the brain and 
purpose of man at a single time." In one sense only 
was it struck off at a single time: Fifty-five men 
sat four months at Philadelphia and drafted our 
written Constitution. But those men merely put 
into form the experiences of their own colonies, 
their observations upon the English government, 
and the principles of English common law; and the 
American Constitution has expanded since then in 
several ways — by amendments, by interpretation 
by the courts, and by usage. The American Con- 
stitution is therefore much more than the mere 
written document. 

The English constitution is a still better example 
of how political systems grow and cannot be made 
at one time. No formal assembly ever sat to draft 
a complete scheme of government for England; its 
constitution developed gradually, and we can men- 
tion only some of the great landmarks which put it 
into its present form. Some of these were in the 



THE ENGLISH GO\'EIlX^IEXT 9 

nature of treaties, such as the Union with Scotland 
in 1707, and the Union with L'eland in 1801; others 
were in the form of agreements between opposing 
poKtical forces or groups — such as the Magna 
Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights; 
a third source of the constitution comprised statutes, 
such as the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, the Act of 
Settlement of 1701, the Fox Libel Act of 1792, the 
Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884, the Municipal 
Corporations Act of 1835, the ParHamentary and 
Municipal Elections Act of 1872, the Local Govern- 
ment Acts of 1888 and 1894, the Parhament Act of 
1911, and the numerous suffrage Acts ending with 
the Representation of the People x\ct in 1918. 

Nor are these the only sources of the EngHsh 
constitution. There are unwritten sources, such as 
the common law, com't decisions, and understandings 
or conventions, as they are called, many of which 
have never been put into written form by legislative 
bodies. The student who wishes to form some idea 
of the Enghsh constitution may do so by an examina- 
tion of the above-mentioned documents and sources. 
For our present purpose it will be sufficient to 
remember that the chief organs of the English 
government gradually grew into their present form. 
We shall therefore turn to consider what they are 
and how they operate. 

In England the chief organs of the central govern- 
ment are King, iSIinistry, and Parhament consisting 



10 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

of two houses. The King, though a hereditary 
monarch, has practically no political power, and the 
executive authority is exercised entirely by the 
Cabinet, an inner circle of the ministry, which con- 
sists of the heads of departments. Their number is 
about twenty, while the number included in the 
term ministry ranges ordinarily from seventy-five 
to one hundred. The Cabinet is the soul and center 
of the English government, and while in some 
respects its position is not unlike that of the American 
Cabinet, its functions are both legislative and 
executive, and its relation to the legislative branch is 
entirely different. The American Cabinet is inde- 
pendent of Congress; the British Cabinet consists 
of members and leaders of Parliament selected by 
the Prime Minister largely because of that leader- 
ship. If the members of the President's Cabinet 
were also at the same time members of the dominant 
party in the Senate or House of Representatives, 
and if the President's term of office were dependent 
upon his ability to lead Congress, we should have 
essentially the English system of cabinet government. 
The House of Lords consists of about 680 members 
who hold seats — (1) by hereditary right, (2) by 
creation of the sovereign, (3) by virtue of office — 
Law Lords, English archbishops and bishops, (4) by 
election for life — Irish peers, and (5) by election 
for duration of Parliament — Scottish peers. While 
none of the members of the British upper house is 



THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 11 

elected by popular suffrage, in 1911 their power was 
finally so restricted by the famous Parliament Act 
that we may now say in truth that the legislative 
power of England resides in the popularly elected 
House of Commons. By that Act all money bills 
passed by the House of Commons and sent to the 
House of Lords become a law one month after they 
have been sent to that house. All other public 
bills, except a bill extending the duration of Parlia- 
ment, if passed by the House of Commons in three 
successive sessions, whether of the same Parliament 
or not, and presented in each case to the House of 
Lords, become law without the assent of the upper 
house providing two years have elapsed between 
the second reading in the first session and the 
third reading in the third session. The Parliament 
Act also limited the duration of Parliament to five 
years instead of seven. Until about 1832 the House 
of Lords was the dominant chamber, but the Re- 
form Act of that year brought the lower house into 
greater prominence, and since then the House of 
Lords has gradually decHned in power and influence 
until the Act of 1911 virtually removed the last ves- 
tige of privilege from the government of England. 

The House of Commons is therefore the real 
legislative body. It consists of 707 members elected 
by universal popular suffrage for a term of five 
years unless a prorogation of Parliament and a new 
election ends their term before that period has 



12 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

expired. Until the Representation of the People 
Act in 1918 the number of members in the House of 
Commons was 670, but that Act redistributed the 
seats in Great Britain on the basis of one member 
for every 70,000 of the population, and a separate 
bill gave Ireland one member for every 43,000 of 
the population. The principal act also greatly 
extended the right of suffrage to men, and it also 
included women over thirty years of age, so that one 
third of the population now has the voting privilege. 
Its total effect was to double the voting population. 

With these facts before us we may now consider 
how and why England is, with the possible exception 
of Switzerland, politically the most democratic 
government in the world. The first fact to be noted 
is, that England has had, since 1689, two great 
political parties, and that the party in power has 
complete control of the government. That is what 
is meant by "party government." There are of 
course always minor parties which sometimes hold 
the balance of power between the two great parties. 
The last general election in 1910 gave the Liberals 
272, the Laborites 42, the Irish Nationalists 76, the 
Independent Nationalists 8, and the Conservatives 
and Unionists 272. The Liberals had the support 
of the Laborites, Irish Nationalists and Independent 
Nationalists, thus giving the Government a majority 
of 126. 

But in order to understand the Parliamentary 



THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 13 

system of government let us assume, what is normally 
the case, that the two great groups, called for the 
sake .of convenience Conservatives and Liberals, 
are facing an election. If the Conservatives win 
and the majority of that party controls the House of 
Commons, then the leader of the Conservatives 
becomes Prime Minister, and every member of his 
Cabinet will be selected from the Conservative 
party in accordance with the expressed will of the 
majority of the voters. Now let us assume that the 
Conservative party after being in power for a time 
commits the country to a policy which the people 
disapprove, let us say a new tax on incomes. If 
popular opinion, as expressed in newspapers and 
various other organs of public expression, opposes 
the tax, there will be such a vigorous protest against 
the party in power that the King, acting solely upon 
the advice of the Prime Minister, who is head of the 
party, will be compelled to dissolve Parliament and 
issue writs for a new election. The question upon 
which that election will turn will be the income tax, 
and the people will decide it by voting for candidates 
who favor or oppose the tax. If the ministry which 
precipitated the election is sustained by the return 
of a Conservative party majority, the old Cabinet 
remains in power and their policy is continued. If, 
on the other hand, the Liberal party returns a 
majority, the old Cabinet resigns and the leader of 
the Liberals is formally appointed by the Crown as 



14 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

Prime Minister. The latter then chooses all the 
members of his Cabinet from the Liberal party; 
and a Liberal government pursues a policy in 
accordance with the expressed wishes of the 
electorate. 

It sometimes happens that in a crisis, such as the 
present war, when one or two minor parties, such as 
the Labor and Irish Nationalist parties, vigorously 
oppose the Cabinet or Government, leaders from 
these parties are called into the Cabinet and a 
"coalition ministry" is formed. In fact, the present 
war has furnished not only an illustration of coali- 
tion, but also an example of the elasticity of the 
English system to meet a crisis. The Cabinet 
prior to December, 1916, consisted of the political 
chiefs of the principal departments of government 
and exceeded twenty in number. In February, 
1918, the Cabinet was reduced to six members, 
three of whom were "without portfolio." The pres- 
ent "War Cabinet" consists of D. Lloyd George, who 
is Prime Minister and first Lord of the Treasury; 
Lord Curzon, leader of the House of Lords and 
Lord President of the Council; A. Bonar Law, Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House 
of Commons; those without portfolio are Austen 
Chamberlain, G. N. Barnes, and Lieutenant-General 
J. C. Smutz. (See Statesman's Year-Book, 1918.) 
It is indeed a high tribute to the English people 
and to English statesmen thus to lay aside political 



THE GO^^RN^IENT OF FRANCE 15 

differences and to cooperate in ttie nation's day of 
need. The ability of a government to adapt itseK 
to such a crisis, to unite in action, yet allow the 
greatest freedom of speech and press, to extend 
suffrage beyond that of any other government on 
earth, at the same time calling to leadership the 
aristocracy of intellect, clearly shows democracy in 
its most enlightened form. 

Let us now examine from the same point of view 
the government of France. 

The Government of France 

The defeat of the French armies at the hands of 
the Germans in 1870 destroyed the tottering Empire 
of Napoleon III and gave to France its present 
RepubHc. The constitution of the thu-d Repubhc 
was framed by a provisional government set up from 
1870 to 1875, when five constitutional laws were 
passed providing for a government essentially as it 
is to-day. Like the American Constitution, the 
French Constitution is a wTitten document, or rather 
a collection of written documents, but unlike the 
American Constitution it may be re\ased and 
amended by the two legislative chambers sitting 
together in joint session and called the National 
Assembly. 

The chief organs of government are a President, 
a Ministry or Cabinet, and a ParKament consisting 



16 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The 
President is chosen for seven years by the National 
Assembly or joint session of the two chambers. 
Legally the French President has numerous and 
important powers including the initiation of laws 
concurrently with the members of the two chambers, 
or, in other words, the right to introduce bills in the 
chambers. Custom has given him still greater 
powers in the right of issuing ordinances having the 
force of supplementary legislation. On the other 
hand, his veto power is merely suspensive, i.e, he 
may demand a reconsideration by Parliament of 
any bill which it has passed; but if reenacted by a 
simple majority, it is incumbent upon him to pro- 
mulgate the bill as a law. The weakness of his 
position lies in the fact that the constitutional law 
of 1875 provides that "every act of the President of 
the Republic shall be countersigned by a minister," 
and "the ministers shall be collectively responsible 
to the chambers for the general policy of the govern- 
ment, and individually for their personal acts." 

Like the King of England, the French President 
has much superficial authority but little real power, 
because the powers vested in him are performed by 
the ministers — ministers who are responsible for 
their acts to Parliament. The President has power 
to select these ministers, but the exigencies of party 
strife practically dictate the choice to be made, and 
after the President has signified the party leader 



THE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE 17 

who shall be Prime Minister, he has customarily 
little or nothing fm-ther to say in the selection of the 
Cabinet. He presides over the Council of State, 
an administrative body and administrative court 
of last resort, but is not usually present at Cabinet 
meetings in which the real policy of government is 
determined. But when a cabinet falls, since there 
is no victorious opposition leader as in England, 
his duty in the formation of a new cabinet becomes 
more important than that of the King of England. 
Yet in general the President's power is but nominal, 
the real executive is the ministry. 

Acting in a collective capacity the French ministry 
has two functions — one, as a council of state, and 
the other, as a cabinet. In the former capacity the 
ministers have general supervision of the administra- 
tion of laws; in the latter, they formulate the policies 
of government and defend these policies in the 
chambers. Collectively, the ministers are responsi- 
ble in general matters, and individually in particular 
ones, nominally to the two chambers, but in reality 
to the Chamber of Deputies alone. The importance 
of responsibility to the lower chamber will become 
apparent after we have considered the composition 
of the two chambers forming the legislative branch. 
In the first place let us examine the upper chamber. 

By the law of 1875 it was provided that the 
Senate should consist of 300 members, of whom 225 
should be elected for a term of nine years from the 



18 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

Departments (85 subdivisions into which France is 
divided) and from the colonies by indirect methods 
of election, while 75 members were to be elected by 
the National Assembly itself, for life. This system 
in the main continues in effect to-day, except that 
in 1884 provision was made whereby the method of 
electing for life should be abolished, and all vacancies 
occurring among the life members should thereafter 
be filled in the regular manner. There are at 
present few surviving life members, and when they 
shall have disappeared the Senate will comprise a 
body of 300 members apportioned among the depart- 
ments in approximate proportion to population and 
chosen in all cases by bodies of electors who have 
themselves been elected directly by the people. 

The Chamber of Deputies, to whom the Cabinet 
is responsible, consists of 597 members and rests 
upon a thoroughly democratic basis. The franchise 
is extended to all male inhabitants twenty-one 
years of age who are not bankrupts, convicts, persons 
under guardianship, or in active military or naval 
service. The full membership of the lower chamber 
is elected simultaneously for a term of four years 
unless the chamber is dissolved before that term 
expires. They are elected by secret ballot from 
districts similar to those of the American House of 
Representatives and of the English House of Com- 
mons. As in America, the French chambers have 
in general equal powers in the matter of initiation, 



THE GOVERNIMENT OF FRANCE 19 

enactment, and amendment of laws; as to the 
origin of money bills, impeachment, and the trial 
in cases of impeachment, the powers of the French 
chambers also correspond respectively with the 
powers of the two chambers of the American 
Congress. 

While France has the parliamentary system of 
government patterned after the English model, the 
political parties of the French Republic are more 
unstable, more numerous, and the lines by which 
they are marked off from each other less distinct 
than in England; hence party government in the 
strict sense is less successful, and in the last two 
decades a union of several parties, or the bloc, as it 
is called, has largely shaped the policies of govern- 
ment. While France has therefore a parliamentary 
system of government similar to that of England, 
the French Ministry is clothed with much more 
authority than the Enghsh Cabinet; it has many 
powers which in England are lodged with the 
legislators or the courts of law. We need not here 
dwell upon the reasons for this greater emphasis 
upon the executive control, for our purpose is merely 
to show that France, as England, has a democratic 
and responsible government, and that in the heroic 
struggle she has been making in defense of her coun- 
try, her people, and her civilization, she has been 
fighting for democracy. 



20 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

The Government of Italy 

Before the French Revolution the peninsula of 
Italy was divided into numerous petty kingdoms, 
principalities, and independent republics. It had 
for a long time been disrupted and misgoverned. 
Before Napoleon's invasion in 1796, the greater 
portion was under the dominion of two foreign 
dynasties — the Austrian Hapsburgs and the Spanish 
Bourbons. But with the French invasion came an 
overturning of the old political arrangements in 
Italy and also an awakening of the Italian people to 
a consciousness of unity and strength and to national 
aspirations. The French influence under Napoleon, 
which lasted from 1796 to 1815, left a permanent 
impress upon the political institutions of Italy, 
kindled the fires of self-determination, and directed 
the discordant states toward the highway to national 
unity. It was a long road, however, and we cannot 
here trace the vicissitudes of fortune and misfortune 
until the goal was reached. It was a dramatic and 
heroic struggle against internal disorder and foreign 
intrigue — a struggle in which the names of Victor 
Emanuel, Cavour, Garibaldi, and Mazzini became 
illustrious in Italian history. But unity came at 
last. The first definite step toward that end was 
taken when, during a great popular upheaval in 
1848, Charles Albert, a prince of the House of 
Savoy, with the title of King of Sardinia, granted to 



THE GO^'ERNMEXT OF ITALY 21 

his subjects in Piedmont a royal charter called the 
Statuto, 

Italy had now found a leader and a model demo- 
cratic constitution, and one state after another 
adopted this charter as its fundamental law imtil, 
in 1871, Italian unity was complete. The Kingdom 
of Sardinia had expanded into the Kingdom of 
Italy without any alteration of the original Statuto, 
which still remains as the written constitution of 
the nation. Xo pro^dsion for amendment was made 
when the document was framed, and no change has 
been made in it since. But as in England, custom 
has changed practice, and the government of Italy 
as it is to-day must be considered from its actual 
practice rather than from any fundamental law. 
For our purpose we need only to consider the three 
most important organs of government — the King, 
the IMinistry, and Parliament. 

Italy, Uke England and France, has the parlia- 
mentary system of government. At the head of 
the nation is the King, a hereditary monarch, 
vested by law with much power, but in practice he 
has Httle more than the King of England or the 
President of France. By law his sanction is neces- 
sary to the validity of statutes passed by Parhament, 
but in practice he never vetoes a measure. Accord- 
ing to the Constitution he has the treaty-making 
power; but in practice all treaties, except military 
conventions and alliances, are submitted to Parlia- 



22 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

ment for approval. In fact, all the powers of the 
King are exercised in his name by the ministers who 
are responsible to the popular chamber. He is 
seldom present at Cabinet meetings and has almost 
no influence over domestic politics. Perhaps his 
greatest influence is in his appointment of a suc- 
cessor to a Cabinet leader when in a crisis the 
Ministry resigns, for Italy is split up into a number 
of small parties, none of which has a majority in 
the lower chamber. The Xing may therefore select, 
though from a limited number of party leaders, any 
one he pleases to form a new Cabinet, whereas in 
England the King has no choice — he must select 
the leader of the dominant party. 

Political parties in England are, however, so 
much older than parties in Italy, that there is danger 
of inferring, through comparisons, that Italy has 
not attained to the full stature of parliamentary 
government. It must be remembered that in Italy 
the party system did not begin until after the death 
of Cavour in 1861, and since then the industrial, 
social, and religious changes have been too rapid to 
permit of political development along traditional or 
historical lines. During the first decade after 
Cavour's death, the continual fear of war with 
France prevented the completion of Italian unity 
and consequently a centering of interest upon 
internal affairs. Soon after that danger had passed, 
the question of Church and State came to deflect 



THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY 23 

political development from the course it would 
normally have taken and has taken in other countries 
where the Church is a factor in politics. As a 
protest against the alleged usurpation of secular 
power, Pope Pius IX issued a decree (1883) declaring 
it "inexpedient" that Catholics should vote at 
parliamentary elections. This prevented the forma- 
tion of a clerical party, which would naturally have 
formed the backbone of a Conservative party. 
Then the rise of Socialism (1872-1891) developed 
groups distinguishable from the positions occupied 
in the Chamber — Center, Left, Extreme Left — • 
rather than the position taken on public questions. 
With no conservative check, parties came to diiffer 
only in degree of radicalism, and such was virtually 
the situation at the outbreak of the Great War. 
In 1913 the lower house elected the following: 
ConstitutionaHsts, 318; Radicals, 70; Republicans, 
16; Socialists, 77; Syndicalists, 3; Catholics, 24. 

The Ministry usually consists of heads of depart- 
ments, although occasionally a member is appointed 
without a portfoho solely to help in shaping the 
policy of government and in defending it in the cham- 
bers. After the Premier, or President of the Council, 
as he is called, has been appointed, he nominates 
the other members, who are then formally appointed 
by the crown. If a minister is appointed who is not 
a member of either house, he is obliged by custom 
to become a candidate for the next vacant seat 



24 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

in the Chamber of Deputies unless he is created a 
Senator. 

The Itahan Parliament is composed of a Senate 
and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senate consists 
of 383 members, including the members of the 
royal family and members appointed for life by the 
crown; but the choice is limited to twenty-one 
classes of citizens and to those who have attained 
the age of at least forty years. Among the more 
important classes are: bishops, high officials, deputies 
who have served six years, members of the Royal 
Academy of Science for seven years, citizens who 
pay over $600 in taxes, and others who have dis- 
tinguished themselves in the service of the state. 
A further limitation is placed upon the King in the 
appointment to this chamber by the fact that 
the Senators themselves determine to which of the 
twenty-one categories an appointee belongs, and 
also by the fact that in practice appointment by 
the King actually means appointment by the 
Ministry commanding a majority in the lower 
chamber. In theory the two chambers have equal 
power in the matter of legislation, except in money 
bills, which must originate in the lower house; but 
in practice the Senate is little more than a revising 
body, distinctly inferior to the elected Senate of 
France. 

The Chamber of Deputies is composed of 508 
members elected from single districts by popular 



THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY 25 

vote. Suffrage is granted to nearly all male citizens 
twenty-one years of age, it being denied only to 
those less than thirty years of age who cannot read 
or write. As in England, a Deputy need not reside 
in the district from which he is elected; he must, 
however, be a citizen, at least thirty years of age, in 
possession of full civil and political rights, and not 
belonging to certain classes or professions whose 
members are debarred by law. Deputies are elected 
for a term of five years unless a dissolution of 
Parliament intervenes to end the term before that 
period expires. As a matter of fact, the average 
interval between elections is about three years. 
The organization, rules, and procedure of both 
Italian chambers are in general those common to 
all democratic assemblies of the Continent. 

Such, briefly stated, are the position, composition, 
and relation of the chief organs of the Italian govern- 
ment. With its parliamentary system providing 
for an executive responsible to the lower chamber, 
and that chamber elected by popular vote, excluding 
only a small number of the illiterate, Italy has 
carried democracy to its greatest possible length 
compatible with her social and economic develop- 
ment. 



CHAPTER III 
THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 

Let us now apply to the government of Germany 
the same standards by which we have tested the 
character of the governments of the United States, 
England, France, and Italy. We shall then see to 
what extent the "masters of Germany" represent 
the people of Germany, and we shall also see to 
what extent Germany approaches a democracy. 
It will enable us to understand more clearly what 
President Wilson meant when he said, "When the 
German people have spokesmen whose words we 
can believe, and when those spokesmen are ready in 
the name of the people to accept the common judg- 
ment of the nations as to what shall henceforth be 
the bases of law and covenant for the life of the 
world — we shall be willing and glad to pay the 
full price for peace, and pay it ungrudgingly. We 
know what that price will be. It will be full, im- 
partial justice — justice done at every point and to 
every nation that the final settlement must affect, 
our enemies as well as our friends." 

The statement here quoted has frequently been 
criticised on the ground that it proposes to interfere 
with the internal affairs of a foreign state, and is 

26 



THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 27 

therefore contrary to the spirit of international law 
and the comity of nations. In reply it may be said 
that the President is merely declaring the policy of 
the United States in future dealings with Germany. 
The President is, moreover, proposing no organic 
change in the German government. When, during 
the conflict between the American colonies and 
Great Britain the ministry of Lord North fell in 
1782, and the Whigs, who were our friends, came 
into power, there was, in the best sense of the term, 
a change of government. But that change did not 
involve a constitutional or organic change in the 
English government. It simply meant a change of 
rulers; it meant the coming into power of a govern- 
ment that could be trusted, a government repre- 
senting a people in sympathy with ourselves and 
with our democratic aims; and the result was the 
peace of 1783 which gave us our independence. 
Nor have the refusals of President Wilson to deal 
with Germany except upon the basis of a responsible 
government been without effect, for on October 21, 
1918, in reply to questions concerning an armistice, 
the German Foreign Minister admitted that, 
"Hitherto the representation of the people of the 
German Empire has not been endowed with an 
influence on the formation of the government," 
but adds that, "These conditions have just now 
undergone a fundamental change, a new government 
has been formed in complete accordance with the 



28 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

wishes of the representation of the people, based on 
equal, universal, secret, direct franchise," and that 
"the first act of the new government has been to 
lay before the Reichstag a bill to alter the constitu- 
tion of the empire so that the consent of the repre- 
sentation of the people is required for decisions on 
war and peace." This is both a remarkable ad- 
mission and an unusual proposal on the part of 
the German government; and at the present writing 
(October 22, 1918) it is impossible to predict to what 
extent, if any, vital and fundamental reforms will 
actually be carried out. Nevertheless, the quota- 
tion is such an excellent statement both of the 
defects and the needs of the present German govern- 
ment that I have felt justified in citing it. Moreover, 
it completely vindicates the position of President 
Wilson in insisting upon dealing, in this case at 
least, only with a popular or responsible Germany. 

Let us now see to what extent our quarrel is with 
the "masters" or rulers of the German Empire 
rather than with the liberal spirits who in Germany 
to-day are supporting — so far as support is possible 
— President Wilson's liberal program. But to un- 
derstand the problem it will be necessary to con- 
sider the chief organs of the German government 
and their relation to the people. 

After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna, 
in 1815, erected into a loose confederation thirty- 
nine German states under the presidency of Austria. 



THE G0\T:IIXMENT of GER^L\XY 29 

This arrangement lasted until the crushing defeat of 
Austria by Prussia in 1866. Thereafter Austria 
was excluded from all participation in German 
poHtics. In the following year Bismarck succeeded 
in uniting twenty-two German states north of the 
river Main into the Xorth German Confederation 
under the leadership of Prussia. A written Con- 
stitution was adopted by the Confederation which 
forms the legal basis of the government even at the 
present time. Four South German states were 
added in 1870 by treaties, and in 1871, at the con- 
clusion of the Franco-Prussian War, the name of 
the North German Confederation was changed to 
German Empire. The addition of the four states 
by treaties, however, made a modification of the 
original constitution of the Xorth German Con- 
federation necessary, and at the suggestion of the 
Emperor it was re\'ised and approved by the Reichs- 
tag, April 14, 1871, and this re\4sion constitutes the 
Imperial Constitution of to-day. 

Under this Constitution the Empire is composed 
of twenty-five states, each ha\TQg a measure of 
local self-government, and the imperial domain of 
Alsace-Lorraine, which in 1911 was elevated into a 
condition of quasi-statehood. We shall not attempt 
to describe the government of the twenty-six states, 
for our concern is solely with the Empire, but it 
should be remembered that they are unequal in 
population, in area, and, contrary to the relationship 



30 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

of the forty-eiglit American states, they are unequal 
in their relation to the Empire. That is to say, 
whereas the American federal government is based 
upon the equality of states and the equality of 
individuals in relation to that government, the 
German Empire is based upon the inequality of both 
states and individuals in their relations to the 
central government. And we may add at once, 
that Prussia, containing three-fifths of the total 
population of the Empire, is the dominant state. 

Now it might appear that in view of the large 
population of Prussia a preponderating influence in 
the affairs of government by that state would be 
justified and entirely consistent with democratic 
ideals; and indeed, it would be if the Imperial 
Constitution or sovereign power rested on the basis 
of popular representation expressed by a popular 
vote. But this is not the case; sovereignty rests 
not in a national Parliament elected by the people, 
but in the Bundesrat or upper chamber, which, as 
we shall presently see, is not a popular body. Nor 
is the written Constitution a popular instrument in 
any sense of the term. While the procedure in 
amending it is in general identical with that of 
ordinary legislative enactments, there is an im- 
portant exception: an amendment is defeated if 
fourteen votes are cast against it; and Prussia 
controls twenty votes in the Bundesrat. Thus the 
Kaiser, who controls the Prussian votes, may block 



THE G0\^RX:MENT of GEIi:VL\NY 31 

any amendment to the Constitution, no matter 
how greatly desired by the people. 
• With these general observations concerning the 
origin and nature of the German Empire, let us 
consider briefly the position and powers of the chief 
organs of government. They are: Emperor, Chan- 
cellor, Bundesrat, and Reichstag. The Imperial 
Constitution pro^-ides that "to the King of Prussia 
shall belong the presidency of the Confederation 
and he shall bear the title of German Emperor." 
In other words, there is lodged in the hands of a 
single indi^-idual the two highest offices in Germany; 
the one places hi m at the head of the largest state 
in Germany, and the other at the head of the Empire 
itself. As King of Prussia his powers are very 
comprehensive, exceeding those of any other Euro- 
pean sovereign; as Emperor his powers are less 
numerous but, so far as they go, of fimdamental 
importance. He is commander-in-chief of the army 
and navy and controls the entire military organiza- 
tion of both the states and the Empire. The entire 
foreign policy, including war and peace, is ratually 
in his hands, for the limitations imposed by requiring 
the consent of the Bundesrat and Reichstag in 
certain matters are in law, by ^Trtue of his relation 
to Prussia and the Bundesrat, of such a nature as to 
make restraint next to impossible; and in practice 
such restrictions are seldom applied. In legislation, 
in appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, and 



32 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

finally in the execution of laws, his powers are so 
extensive that he may virtually control the three 
branches of government which in America are 
limited by the Constitution and by our elaborate 
system of checks and balances. 

The Emperor appoints the imperial Chancellor, 
who "shall preside in the Bundesrat and supervise 
the control of business." While the Constitution 
provides that all decrees and ordinances shall be 
countersigned by the Chancellor, "who thereby 
assumes the responsibility for them," that responsi- 
bility is not, as in England and France, to the lower 
or popular branch of the legislature, but to the 
Emperor. Moreover, the place filled by the minis- 
try in the other governmental systems, described 
above, is occupied by the Chancellor alone. This 
fact in itself would not, however, be of great signifi- 
cance if the Chancellor were responsible for his acts 
to the legislative branch of government, and if that 
branch were responsible to the people. Such practice 
would soon develop a parliamentary system of gov- 
ernment, and the legal power of the Emperor would 
become a mere adornment of an empty title. But 
as long as the Emperor's word, spoken either by 
himself or spoken through his mouthpiece, the Chan- 
cellor, remains unchallenged by a popular or repre- 
sentative body, Germany can in no sense lay claim 
to a responsible government. In our consideration 
of the German government thus far, then, we find 



THE GO\TERNIVIENT OF GERMANY 33 

nothing in the powers and functions of the Emperor 
approaching a democracy. Let us therefore see to 
what extent the two chief organs yet to be considered 
approach the democratic idea. 

We will begin with the Bundesrat — "that ex- 
traordinary mixture of legislative chamber, executive 
council, court of appeal, and permanent assembly of 
diplomats." It is the most German of all German 
institutions. It is composed of delegates appointed 
by the princes of the states and the senates of the 
free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck. Of 
the total number of votes allotted to each state, 
Prussia has seventeen (but controls three more), 
Bavaria six, Saxony four, Wurttemberg four, Baden 
three, Hesse three, Mecklenberg-Schwerin two, 
Brunswick two, Alsace-Lorraine, which in 1911 
nominally became a state, three, and the seventeen 
other states one each, making in all a total of sixty- 
one votes. It is important to note at the outset 
that the Bundesrat is not a senate, but a body of 
diplomats acting under instructions from the govern- 
ing authorities who appointed them. The members 
vote not as individuals, but by states as a unit. 
Thus Prussia casts twenty votes in a block according 
to instructions from the King of Prussia. It is also 
important to note that the Bundesrat may be called 
into session by the Emperor without calling the 
Reichstag, but the Reichstag may not meet without 
the Bundesrat, and that the Bundesrat always holds 



84 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

its sessions in secret; and in case of a tie, the Prussian 
delegation casts the deciding vote; or in case of a 
bill changing the status quo of the army or navy or 
tariff, Prussia may veto any reform. Passing by 
the executive and judicial functions, which are im- 
portant, it is sufficient to note here that in matters 
of legislation the Bundesrat, or rather the Chancellor, 
in practice initiates and makes all laws with merely 
the consent of the Reichstag. In this respect it is 
the reverse of the English system, where the upper 
chamber is merely a revising and an assenting body. 
The Reichstag need not detain us long, for it has 
little power, and in fact was not created primarily 
as a legislative chamber, but rather to stimulate 
national sentiment and enlist popular support 
against the local and dynastic influences which have 
free play in the Bundesrat. It is composed of 397 
members elected for a term of five years by a direct 
and secret ballot, each member being elected from 
a single district. But the districts, which have not 
been changed since 1871, have become so unequal 
in population that this fact alone would make the 
lower house undemocratic. If the seats were re- 
distributed upon the basis of equal population, the 
liberal element of Germany would now control the 
Reichstag. But that control alone, be it remem- 
bered, would not make Germany a democratic state, 
because a democratic government is one in which 
political power, by whatever agencies it may be 



THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY 35 

exercised, is based upon the popular will and not 
upon the authority of an Emperor, a Chancellor, 
or a Bundesrat, none of whom is responsible to a 
popular majority. Thus the German state is one 
in which the poHcy of government and the execution 
and admmistration of that poHcy proceed from 
above, and is accountable and responsible, not to 
the masses for whom the democracies of the world 
have been fashioned, but to the favored few who 
now seem to hold in the hollow of their hands the 
destiny of seventy million subjects and who threaten 
the peace of the world. 



CHAPTER IV 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 

The Great War has created an unusual interest in 
the government of Austria-Hungary. As the chief 
ally of Germany and the bridge of Prussian ambition 
to the East, her defeat and recent detachment from 
Germany mean the speedy conclusion of the war; 
and her fortunes at the peace conference will un- 
doubtedly become the subject of extensive discussion 
and negotiation. A brief sketch of her history 
and political institutions seems, therefore, not only 
justified but also necessary to a proper understanding 
of American war aims. 

The Dual Monarchy is composed of two sovereign 
states, the Austrian Empire and the Hungarian 
Kingdom. Each state has its own Constitution, 
its own executive and legislative departments, its 
own courts, its own system of local governments; 
and to a large extent each has had its own history. 
The two governments have, however, been united 
under a common ruler since 1526; when, after the 
defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at the battle 
of Mohacs, a Hapsburg prince was elected to the 
throne of Hungary. 

The Ottoman Turks, it will be remembered, were, 

36 



AUSTRL\.HUNGARY S7 

under a great ruler, Suleiman II (1520-1566), rapidly 
extending their sway westward. They estabhshed 
themselves in Asia, Asia ]\Iinor, Armenia, SjTia, 
Caucasia, the Euphrates Valley, and the shores 
of the Red Sea. They conquered the entire Bal- 
kan peninsula, including present Greece, Bulgaria, 
Hungary, Bosnia, and Herzego^^a. The last two 
pro\TQces mentioned they held until the Congress of 
Berlin in 1878, when Austria was given administra- 
tive control over them; and indeed Turkey main- 
tained nominal suzerainty over them until they 
were formally annexed to the Austrian Empire in 
1908. It was to save herseh, therefore, from the 
ferocious Tm-k that Hungary ;^delded her inde- 
pendence by choosing a foreign ruler. But the 
union had little effect upon the development of 
Hungarian institutions or the style of her own 
government. We shall, therefore, briefly sketch the 
history of each state separately and then consider 
the government. 

The History of Austria 

Austria was originally a mark or border county 
formed by Charlemagne as a bulwark of the Frankish 
Kingdom against the Slavs. During the ninth 
century it was overrun by the Mora\aans (Slavs) 
and Magyars (Turanians) and all traces of Frankish 
institutions were swept away. Not until Otto the 
Great conquered the Hungarians in 955 and re- 



38 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

organized the mark did a continuous development 
begin; a development, that is, that can be traced to 
modern times. Leopold of Babenberg was the first 
of a distinguished family to govern the mark, and 
from the beginning of his rule in 966 to the extinction 
of his line in 1246 the boundaries were extended, 
the administration consolidated, and an orderly 
government established. In 1156 the mark was 
raised to the dignity of a duchy, and it became 
practically an independent state. But the event 
most important to the student of present politics 
was the advent into history of the reigning family 
of to-day — the House of Hapsburg. Rudolph of 
Hapsburg became German King and Emperor in 
1273, and three years later he compelled Duke 
Ottokar, who then ruled over Austria, Styria, and 
Carinthia, to give up the three dominions, and 
Austria then became the center of Hapsburg 
interests. In 1453 the duchy was raised to an 
archduchy, and in 1512 Austrian lands became one 
of the Imperial Circles. Six years later repre- 
sentatives of the Austrian diets met for the first 
time at Innsbruck. 

In 1519 Maximilian I was succeeded in the arch- 
duchy and in the imperial crown by his grandson, 
known in history as Emperor Charles V, who was a 
strong supporter of the Catholic Church and a 
vigorous opponent of Martin Luther and the Refor- 
mation. Too much occupied with measures to pre- 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 39 

vent tJie Reformation, the Emperor gave his brother 
Ferdinand all his Austrian possessions, and the 
latter devoted most of his time to fighting the Tm-ks 
and to securing the independence of Hungary. 
These efforts in behalf of Hungary led to the union 
of the two states in 1526; and when in 1556 Ferdi- 
nand also succeeded to the imperial throne the 
affairs of Austria became involved with those of the 
Empire, to the detriment of the former. Xot until 
after the Thirty Years' War did Austria receive due 
attention from the imperial rulers. 

The next haff century of Austrian history was one 
of many wars; and at the Peace of Karlowitz in 
1699 she gained Slavonia, Transylvania, and nearly 
all of Hungary, thus completing the territorial 
structure of the Austrian monarchy. Then followed 
a period of internal consohdation, laying the founda- 
tion for autocratic power which was carried forward 
under Maria Theresa and continued almost unin- 
terruptedly till 1848. A strong standing army 
was the instrument by which autocracy was main- 
tained and the spirit of Hberty and democracy, 
released by the French Revolution, beaten down. 
Indeed the Kberahzing forces of the French Revolu- 
tion affected Austria least of all the states of Europe. 
She was little molested by the ravages of war during 
the Napoleonic period; she had, moreover, from 
1809 to 1848, as Prime IMinister, one of the most 
influential and commanding personalities of Europe. 



40 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

A thorougli-going reactionary, opposed to revolu- 
tion from below and reform from above. Prince 
Metternicb was tbe actual government of Austria. 
But tbe Revolution of 1848 which drove Metternich 
from power, the Crimean War (1854-1856), which 
cost Austria allies and friends, and her signal defeat 
in a seven weeks' campaign at the hands of the 
Germans which excluded her from Germany and 
Italy, taught the Hapsbm-gs to pursue a more 
conciliatory policy toward Hungary. The Con- 
stitution or March Laws, as they were called, which 
the liberal Hungarians had drafted and put into 
operation for a few months, were restored in Febru- 
ary, 1867, and to the Hungarian Diet was left the 
final adoption of measures of compromise with 
Austria. The general result of the Ausgleich or 
Compromise was the recognition of Hungary as a 
coordinate part of the Empire. 

Titles of Austrian Rulers 

A word should also be said concerning the title of 
the Austrian rulers. We have seen that the territory 
which developed into the present empire was at 
first a buffer county called a mark. Later it was 
elevated into a duchy, and in 1453 into an arch- 
duchy, a dignity which it maintained until 1804, 
when the Archduke Francis II assumed the title of 
Francis I, Emperor of Austria, a title held at the 
present day. But to avoid confusion it should be 



AUSTRLl-HTXGAIlY 41 

remembered that since the coronation of Charle- 
magne, in 800, as Emperor of the Holy Roman 
Empire, this title was a thing apart from the title 
which gave immediate control of a particular terri- 
tory or state. Thus a King of Saxony or a ruler of 
Luxemburg might also, in addition to the title 
conferred by his own state, bear the title and perform 
the functions of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. 
The latter title had been, since 1273, generally held 
by the rulers of Austria. 

"VMien, therefore, Francis U in 1804 changed the 
title of Archduke to that of Emperor, he carried 
two imperial titles. But "coming events cast their 
shadows before." He feared that he might lose the 
more ancient title held by Charlemagne; and his 
fears were well founded. In 1805 the South German 
states detached themselves from the emphe, formed 
the Confederation of the Rhine, and accepted the 
protection of Xapoleon; and on August 6, 1806, 
Francis I voluntarily rehnquished the crown of the 
Holy Roman Emphe which, during its sur^dval of a 
thousand years, was with few exceptions little more 
than an empty title. 

The History of Hungary 

The Mag^^ars or Hungarians, supposed to have 
come from Asia, made their first appearance in what 
is now called Hungary in the latter part of the ninth 
century. They occupied the valleys of the Danube 



4^ DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

and the Theiss between the Slavs of the north and 
the Balkans of the south, terrorizing the German 
and French population until in a great battle at 
Lechfeld, in 955, they were defeated by the Germans 
and took on a settled mode of life. The reign of 
St. Stephen (977-1038) is generally regarded as the 
formative period of their history, and his administra- 
tion promised the development of a great state; 
but Hungary had throughout her early history few 
rulers equal to the task of laying the foundation of 
an orderly and stable government. The weakness 
of the sovereigns in the thirteenth century, feudalism, 
and civil discord brought to the front a powerful 
class of nobles who overshadowed the throne and 
made internal consolidation impossible. 

The difficulties from without were no less trying. 
On the north were the Germans and the forces of 
the Holy Roman Empire; on the east, the natives 
of modern Roumania; on the south, Greeks and 
Slavs, Serbs and Bulgars, and later, the Ottoman 
Turks. On all sides these races were hostile, so 
that the Magyars were continually fighting, some- 
times an offensive warfare in one quarter, or beating 
back an invasion from another, until they were 
driven by the ferocious Turks to seek the protection 
of the Hapsburg monarchy in 1526. 

The chief landmark in the constitutional develop- 
ment of Hungary is the Golden Bull of 1222, a 
charter granting a measure of liberty which has 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 43 

generally been regarded as the foundation of Hun- 
garian liberty; and it is interesting to note that it 
was granted only seven years after the famous 
EngHsh Magna Carta. The proximity in time of 
these two charters suggests comparisons that would 
be both interesting and profitable if we traced the 
history of the two documents in detail. But we 
can here observe only one characteristic difference 
between the Anglo-Saxon and the Magyar. 

In England liberties once won were never again 
lost. In Hungary, on the other hand, dm-ing the 
next three centuries the national spirit was almost 
completely annihilated. After the union with the 
Hapsburg monarchy the government gradually came 
under Austrian control, and the Hungarian Diet 
was seldom called into session; and after 1764, not 
at all. Thus the era of the French Revolution 
found Hungarian liberty and self-government all 
but extinct. 

For Austria, it must be admitted, the problem of 
satisfying and at the same time governing the various 
races in her dominions was not an easy one. The 
principle of nationality — the erection of a state on 
the basis of race — in the nineteenth century meant 
a united Germany, a united Italy, and even a united 
Russia; but that principle, carried to its logical 
conclusion in Austria, meant disintegration. She 
had many races, whose national aspirations consti- 
tuted, then as now, the great obstacle to unity. 



44 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

At tlie same time a more enlightened policy on 
the part of Metternich in the first half of the nine- 
teenth century, when the forces of freedom were 
asserting themselves throughout western Europe 
and in many of the British possessions, might have 
spared him the exile which awaited him, and at the 
same time won for him the confidence and coopera- 
tion of the Liberals. England learned her lesson in 
the American Revolution and gave^ her colonies 
self-government. This is all Hungary really asked 
for; but when the liberal movement crept into the 
Austrian dominions and the liberal spirits took 
heart and under the leadership of Louis Kossuth 
and Francis Deak organized a liberal party having 
for its aim the reestablishment of autonomy for 
Hungary, the movement was crushed. The Revolu- 
tion of 1848 was followed by the reaction of 1849. 
The Liberals in Hungary lost everything they had 
been fighting for. The Austrian autocracy was 
again in control, and in the words of Professor Ogg, 
"Vienna became once more the seat of a government 
whose fundamental objects may be summarized as 
(1) to Germanize the Magyars and Slavs, (2) to 
restrain all agitation in behalf of constitutionalism; 
and (3) to prevent freedom of thought and the 
establishment of a free press." Hungary was 
governed by German officials from Vienna more 
despotically than ever. It took Austria two more 
decades to learn imperfectly what France had 



AUSTRLl-HUXGARY 45 

thoroughly learned a half century earlier and what 
England had imderstood a century before. The 
agreement finally reached between Austria and 
Hungary was, as we have already seen, expressed 
in the Compromise of 1867, which we will now 
consider. 

The Compromise of 1867 

The joint government of the Dual Monarchy is 
no exception to the principle adopted by all states 
formed by a union of separate and independent 
communities — the principle of compromise. All 
constitutions rest upon the basis of mutual con- 
cessions of varied interests. We have alreadv seen 
what these conflicting interests between Austria 
and Hungary were, and they need not be repeated 
here. The plan agreed upon determined the general 
character of the government from that day to this. 
The whole country was divided into two parts: 
(1) the Empire of Austria, including the archduchies 
of Upper and Lower Austria, the kingdoms of 
Bohemia, GaHcia, and Dalmatia, the margravates of 
Mora^da and Istria, the duchies of Salzburg, St;}Tia, 
Carinthia, Carniolia, and Bukowina, the county of 
Tyrol, and the city of Triest; and (2) the Kingdom 
of Hungary, including Hungary proper, the King- 
dom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the principahty of 
Transylvania. Francis Joseph assumed the joint 
title of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. 



46 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

Each of the two states was to manage its internal 
affairs, and provision was made for a joint govern- 
ment for certain affairs in which the states had a 
common concern; other affairs of common interest 
such as trade, tariffs, pubHc debt, and railways were 
to be regulated by treaties between the two states, 
renewable at intervals of ten years. The Com- 
promise also provided machinery for carrying these 
plans into execution. That machinery constitutes 
the government of the Dual Monarchy essentially 
as it is to-day, and will be considered in the next 
chapter under the following heads: The Common 
Government, the Government of Austria, and the 
Government of Hungary. 



CHAPTER V 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: GOVERNMENT OF TO-DAY 

The Common Government 

In the preceding pages attention has been called 
to the fact that the Dual Monarchy consists of two 
practically independent states, each equipped with 
its own constitution, ministry, legislature, judiciary, 
and system of local governments. If this relation 
be kept in mind it may serve to prevent confusing 
different institutions and organs of government to 
which the same term is appKed. Thus, for example, 
reference to a ministry in the Dual Monarchy might 
mean any one of three ministries, namely, the 
Austrian ministry, the Hungarian ministry, or the 
joint ministry. 

The machinery of the joint government is very 
simple, and the scope of its independent action is 
very limited. That is to say, the joint government 
does not have power to deal with all matters in 
which the two states have a common interest. 
The Austro-Hungarian government is pecuHar in 
this respect, and the limitations thus placed upon it 
give rise to many embarrassing situations which 

47 



48 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

would not occur in a government like the American 
where all powers in which the states have a common 
interest are exercised exclusively by the central 
government. 

The Austro-Hungarian arrangement provides that 
the joint government shall have exclusive control of 
only a few of the many interests that are common 
to both states. 

The special machinery of the joint government 
consists of (1) a single ruler who bears the title of 
Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary; (2) a 
common ministry consisting of three departments: 
foreign affairs, military and naval affairs, and 
finance relating to common affairs; and (3) a unique 
political invention called the "Delegations." 

The legislative power of the joint government is 
exercised by the parliaments of both states acting 
independently of each other, but the determination 
of what constitutes common affairs and the recom- 
mendations of the money to be voted for common 
services are determined by the Delegations. Of 
these there are two, each composed of sixty members 
representing the legislative bodies of the two states, 
twenty being chosen from each of the upper houses 
and forty from each of the lower houses. All mem- 
bers of both Delegations are elected annually and 
may be reelected. The Delegations are called into 
session by the Emperor-King every year alternately 
at Vienna and Budapest. They sit in separate 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HIJNGARY 49 

chambers and deliberate independently of each 
other; their decisions are communicated in writing; 
and if after three interchanges of opinion they do not 
agree, both Delegations meet together and, without 
discussion, settle the matter by vote. 

The Delegations are virtually committees repre- 
senting the legislatures of the two states; but they 
are clothed with some powers and certain responsi- 
bilities not usually vested in legislative committees. 
The joint ministers are responsible to them; they 
submit all projects in which common action is 
necessary to the legislatures of the two states; they 
prefer charges of impeachment for violations of the 
constitutional law pertaining to common affairs, 
and they select judges to try cases of impeachment. 

The chief executive power of the joint government 
reiides in the monarch, but his powers as Emperor- 
"King are very limited, the most important being 
the appointment of the joint ministry and the 
command of the common army and navy. But 
while the supreme command is vested in the joint 
monarch, each country maintains its independent 
arrangements for raising and equipping troops. 

Besides the permanent political connection be- 
tween Austria and Hungary, the main features of 
which are here described, there is also a commercial 
union which is not permanent, but renewable at 
intervals of ten years. This part of the union is 
put in the form of treaties and covers customs 



50 DEMOCRA.CY vs. AUTOCRACY 

legislation, indirect taxes, regulations concerning 
interstate railways, and the establishment of a 
system of defense. The proportion which each state 
contributes to meet the joint expenditures is also 
fixed by treaties. In 1907 Austria's share was 
fixed at 63.6 per cent and Hungary's at 36.4 per cent. 
The joint government also exercises control over 
the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the 
Congress of Berlin in 1878 the military occupation 
of these two Turkish provinces was intrusted to 
Austria-Hungary, and in 1908 they were annexed to 
the Dual Monarchy. This annexation was brought 
about through the desire of Austro-Hungarian capi- 
talists to exploit the economic resources not only 
of the two provinces but also of Albania, western 
Macedonia and Salonica and was one of the chief 
causes of the Great War. In 1910 they were given 
a constitution providing for civil government with 
a local diet; but all laws passed by the local legis- 
lature must have the assent of both the Austrian 
and Hungarian ministries. 

Government of Austria 

The constitution of the Austrian Empire consists 
of a series of diplomas, patents, statutes, and amend- 
ments, the enactment of which covered a period of 
about two hundred years; the first of the more 
important being the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, 
and the last a series of five fundamental laws bearing 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 51 

the date December 21, 1867, when the government 
was put essentially into the form which it has to-day. 
Since the Compromise of 1867 a nmnber of amend- 
ments have been made, the most important of the 
more recent ones being that of 1907 which redis- 
tributed the seats in the lower chamber and extended 
the suffrage. 

The fundamental laws as finally revised provide 
for a limited monarchy with a responsible ministry, 
a legislative body consisting of two chambers, and a 
system of local self-government within each of the 
seventeen states that make up the Empire. The 
form of government may be changed by the same 
method employed in ordinary legislation, except 
that an amendment requires a two-thirds vote of 
both houses instead of a simple majority. 

The Emperor is the supreme authority of the 
state, and all powers not expressly vested elsewhere 
remain with him. An unusual provision in the 
fundamental law gives the Emperor the power of 
issuing ordinances having the force of law if an 
urgent situation demands it and the legislature is 
not at the time in session. The only limitation 
placed upon the Emperor's absolute authority in 
legislative matters in such emergencies is the proviso 
that such ordinances shall be signed by all the 
ministers and that they shall cease to be binding 
if not presented to, and approved by, the legislature 
at the next succeeding session. The ministers are. 



B^ DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

however, appointed by the Emperor, and in practice 
this power has frequently been exercised and the 
government made to run year after year upon the 
sole authority of the executive department. Aside 
from the powers conferred by this provision of the 
Constitution, the Emperor has those powers common 
to rulers of continental Europe. 

The organization, powers, and duties of the 
ministers are in general also similar to those in the 
other countries of the Continent which have already 
been described. Ministers are nominally responsible 
to the Reichsrat, but are appointed and dismissed 
by the Emperor; and, under the leadership of the 
premier, they serve as the Emperor's councillors, 
execute his will, and administer the affairs of their 
respective departments. Though nominally re- 
sponsible to the Reichsrat, in practice they are more 
dependent upon the Emperor than upon Parliament. 

In theory Austria has a parliamentary system of 
government similar to that of England, but on 
account of the numerous and sharp racial divisions 
in both branches of the legislature, the Emperor has 
little difficulty in playing off parties against one 
another so as to defeat representative and responsible 
government. In justice to the government, how- 
ever, it should be said that the problem of governing 
by the consent of a majority is at best a difficult 
one, as we shall see when we come later to consider 
the racial question at the end of this chapter. 



GO\^RNiMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 53 

The Reichsrat or Parliament consists of an upper 
and a lower house. The upper house or House of 
Lords is entirely non-elective. The total number 
varies from time to time, but it is composed of 
princes of the imperial family, landed nobles nomi- 
nated by the Emperor, archbishops, bishops, and 
members appointed by the Emperor for life from 
men who have distinguished themselves in art or 
science or have rendered important services to the 
state. The number of the last-mentioned class was 
fixed by law in 1907 at not less than 150 nor more 
than 170. 

The House of Representatives has a total member- 
ship of 516, elected for a term of six years by uni- 
versal, equal, and direct suffrage. All male citizens 
over twenty-four years of age who have resided at 
least one year in the voting precinct are allowed to 
vote. The electoral districts are, so far as possible, 
each composed of a uniform nationality, and as a 
rule one member is elected from each district, but 
in thirty-six districts of Galicia two members are 
elected from each district. In these districts, how- 
ever, each elector is allowed but one vote, and the 
candidate having the largest number of votes 
recorded is first deputy, while the one receiving the 
next largest number is regarded as second deputy. 
In Mora^'ia the voting population is di\aded accord- 
ing to nationaHty so that German and Bohemian 
electors, for example, choose their representatives 



54 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

separately. In eight of the Austrian provinces 
voting is compulsory. The Emperor nominates the 
president and vice-president of the House of Lords, 
while the House of Representatives elects its own 
officials. 

In the earlier pages of this volume the parlia- 
mentary system of government is described, and 
England is cited as the most conspicuous example 
not only of the responsible parliamentary system, 
but also as the best example of a party government 
or a government by a majority of the governed. 

Such a government obviously can be successfully 
operated only when a single party controls a ma- 
jority in parliament or where a number of parties 
unite and work together harmoniously to attain a 
common purpose or end. Unless such a union can 
be effected, neither a responsible nor a democratic 
government is possible. In Austria the important 
question of responsibility at once suggests the still 
more important question — Responsible to which 
party .f^ The answer to this question may best be 
given in concrete form by calling attention to the 
number of parties and the membership of each in 
the lower chamber in 1911. There were in the 
House of Representatives at that time 100 German 
Nationalists, 73 (German) Christian Socialists, 49 
German Social Democrats, 84 United Bohemian 
Club, 25 Bohemian Social Democrats, 28 Ukraine 
Union, 70 Poles, 9 Polish Social Democrats, 27 



GO\TERN^IENT OF AUSTRLl-HTNGARY 55 

Croatio-Slavonian Club, 7 Dalmatians, 27 Unio- 
latina, and 23 Independents. Under such conditions 
a more enlightened statesmanstdp than Austrian 
premiers have hitherto shown will be necessary to 
form a government "where the common sense of 
most shall keep a fretful realm in awe." 

Provincial and Local Government 

Since the outbreak of the Great War the question 
of the break-up or dismemberment of the Dual 
Monarchy has received much attention from news- 
papers; and even the chancelleries of the warring 
powers have seriously discussed it, and in some 
instances have practically committed their states to 
the policy of dismemberment as a condition of 
peace. The wisdom of such a poKcy does not come 
within the scope of these pages, but since the question 
is much talked about it seems advisable to call 
attention to the agencies aheady at hand whereby 
the Austrian peoples might, so far as mechanism is 
concerned, now be governed entirely by seventeen 
independent states without the interference of the 
imperial government. 

Each of the seventeen provinces has all of the 
machinery necessary for carrying on all the func- 
tions of government; each has a Diet with a single 
chamber made up of representatives from six 
different classes; namely, the church, the uni- 
versities, the great estates, towns, boards of com- 



56 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

merce and industries, and rural communes. The 
sujffrage qualifications vary in different provinces 
as do also the number of representatives in the 
different diets. The latter range from 242 in Bo- 
hemia to 26 in Vorarlberg. 

The Diet controls all local bodies, has charge of 
local taxation, educational, ecclesiastical, and chari- 
table institutions, and public works. In general the 
Diet has all powers not expressly reserved to the 
imperial government. The executive powers are 
exercised by a provincial council consisting of the 
president of the Diet, who is nominated by the 
Emperor and ex-officio chairman, and from four to 
eight members variously elected within the province. 
The provinces are also subdivided into districts and 
communes, each with elective bodies for legislative 
purposes and committees selected from these bodies 
to administer local affairs. 

The Government of Hungary 

The Constitution of Hungary proper and Croatia- 
Slavonia is of very ancient origin, dating from the 
occupation of the Magyars about 891. The first 
king, St. Stephen, was crowned in the year 1000, 
and the first constitutional code is the Bulla Aurea 
of King Andrew II, granted in 1222. But since the 
union with Austria in 1526, the suppression of the 
Magyars had been a cardinal point in Hapsburg 
policy, and consequently there is little evidence of 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 57 

constitutional development in Hungary imtil the 
Revolution of 1848. The Constitution drafted at 
that time, and suspended the following year, was 
restored in its essentials in 1867 and forms the 
general plan of the central government of Hungary 
to-day. 

The Austrian Emperor is Xing of Hungary, and 
the fundamental law provides that "His Majesty 
shall exercise the executive power in conformity 
with law, through the independent Hungarian 
ministry, and no ordinance, order, or appointment 
shall have force unless it is coimtersigned by one 
of the ministers residing at Budapest." The iMin- 
istry which is responsible to ParKament now consists 
of ten heads of departments and two members with- 
out portfolios. The powers and functions of the 
Hungarian ministers are in general so similar to 
those of other governments of the responsible type 
that they need not be described here. 

The legislative power is vested in the Hungarian 
Parliament which consists of two houses — the 
Table of Magnates and the Chamber of Deputies. 
The Magnates is composed of Hungarian princes and 
a limited number of archdukes, landed proprietors, 
archbishops, bishops, and other deputies of the 
Roman CathoKc and Greek chm-ches, lay repre- 
sentatives of the Protestant confessions, and life 
peers appointed by the Crown. The Chamber of 
Deputies is composed of 453 members elected by 



58 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

male suffrage restricted by the condition of a small 
direct tax on land, home, or income, varying with 
occupation. But certain classes belonging to scien- 
tific, learned, and other professions are entitled to 
vote without other qualifications. 

Provincial and Local Government 

While the Magyar element in Hungary has con- 
sistently fought against the interference of Austria 
in the eastern part of the Dual Monarchy, it has 
been less generous than Austria in the matter of 
granting local self-government to the political sub- 
divisions within the state. Dalmatia was united 
to Hungary proper in the twelfth century, and 
Transylvania, which had a considerable measure of 
local autonomy, was united to the Kingdom in 
1848. The provinces of Croatia and Slavonia are, 
in matters pertaining to war, trade, and finance, on 
an equal footing with the other parts of the state; 
but in religion, education, justice, and local affairs 
generally, they have local autonomy. These two 
provinces together constitute a unit and have a 
Diet with 90 members elected for five years; 
they have 40 members in the Chamber of Deputies 
and 3 in the House of Magnates. They also have 
their own ministry consisting of three departments, 
but at the head of the whole ministry is the Ban, 
a chief executive, who is appointed by the Crown. 
In Hungary proper the principal unit for local 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 59 

government is the county, with a council, presided 
over by an official appointed by the Crown, and a 
committee forming the local executive. Munici- 
palities are organized and governed upon the same 
general principles as those of the counties. 

The Problem of Races in the Dual Monarchy 

Having briefly described the relations of the com- 
plex mechanism of the government of the Dual 
Monarchy — the division into two parts, the sub- 
division of these parts into provinces and local units, 
the governmental relation of these units to each 
state or province, the relation of these in turn to 
Empire or Kingdom, and the final union of the latter 
through a common government — we are prepared 
to appreciate some of the problems of the Austro- 
Hungarian government to which the World War 
has called special attention and in which our own 
government has frequently expressed an interest. 
"Dismemberment of the Empire," " seK-determina- 
tion," "Bohemian independence," the "Hungarian 
revolt," the "Magyars," the " Czecho-Slovaks " — 
all are current phrases, all are problems — world 
problems — and the Dual Monarchy must face 
them all. 

But no attempt to understand the problems of 
Austria-Hungary can meet with success that does 
not take account of two hnportant facts — its 
geography and its races. These are the constant 



60 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 

factors which must always be kept In mind. Situ- 
ated in the center of Europe, with an irregular 
boundary line, with a thin arm extending west to 
Lake Constance and the Rhine, a projection as far 
north as Saxony, an elbow thrust into the interior of 
Russia beyond the Vistula and the Dniester, and a 
long strip extending far south along the eastern shore 
of the Adriatic, the problem of defense is a serious 
one. There are eight foreign states on the land 
frontier and four hundred miles of coastline furnish- 
ing avenues of attack from without. 

Her internal racial diversities are still more 
threatening. The ruling family is German, and 
much of her civilization and many of her institu- 
tions bear the Teutonic impress. But out of a 
total population of 51,000,000 in 1910, there were 
only 12,000,000 Germans, while the non-Teutons 
numbered 39,000,000, of whom 10,000,000 were 
Magyars, 4,000,000 Latins, and 24,250,000 Slavs. 
But the Slavs were separated geographically and 
divided by language, customs and religion.^ These 
divisions have enabled the German minority to 
govern the country and to check the reform move- 
ments of the last hundred years; they have enabled 
the Hapsburgs to play off one party against another 
and to hold the balance of power, which has in- 

^ Distribution of population by states in 1910 was as follows: Austria, 
28,571,934; Hungary, 20,744,744; Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1,898,044; a, 
total of 51,215,727. 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 61 

variably been placed in the scale of reaction. It 
was this division of races which enabled the Haps- 
burgs to defeat the Hberal Austrian and Hungarian 
constitutions in 1848; it defeated the Slavic move- 
ment in Bohemia in the same year; and the Magyars 
applied the same principle to defeat the Croatio- 
Slavonic demands in Hungary; the Czechs came 
into conflict with the Pan-Germans of Austria and 
the Slovaks into conflict with the Hungarian revolu- 
tionists under Kossuth. It would therefore be a 
mistake to suppose that playing ofl one party against 
another was a prerogative of any single nationality; 
all have adopted the same methods, but of course 
not always to the attainment of the same ends. 
The Liberals, in so far as they have represented 
national poHcies, have generally stood for a greater 
degree of local seK-government and for equal oppor- 
tunities for all, while the Conservatives have 
generally favored privileges, and the status quo ante, 
in a word — reaction. 

But poKtical differences, such as those just men- 
tioned, need not and would not give the government 
serious concern. The real basic problem is, and has 
always been, the problem of races — a social rather 
than a political problem; and the racial and social 
aspirations have been reflected in the form of 
government and in nearly all of the pohtical and 
social institutions. The Compromise of 1867 was 
simply an agreement on the part of different nation- 



62 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

alities to live together and tolerate each other for 
the time being. It was merely a political truce 
which satisfied none of the races or parties and 
which was sure to be broken at the first moment 
in which any one of the parties to the agreement 
could gain an advantage, recover a lost right, or win 
a new privilege. The Great War furnished the 
moment, and the Czecho-Slovaks were the parties 
which struck for the recovery of lost rights and the 
attainment of new privileges in a wider liberty. 
Their movement is so important that it demands a 
word of explanation. 

The Czecho-Slovaks 

Immediately after the declaration of War, the 
Czecho-Slovaks arraigned themselves on the side of 
the Allies and against Austria-Hungary. Czecho- 
slovak soldiers in the Austrian army refused to 
fight, surrendered to the enemy in large numbers, 
and even formed legions in the Allied armies. Re- 
pressive measures on the part of Austria seemed only 
to intensify opposition and to organize it. A 
Czecho-Slovak National Council was formed, which 
elected Professor Thomas G. Masaryk as president. 
Under his able leadership this council, which was 
really a provisional government, organized Czech 
and Slovak colonies in the allied and neutral coun- 
tries; and on November 14, 1915, it declared the 
Hapsburgs deposed from the throne of Bohemia. 



GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 63 

The leaders of the movement take the position that 
the formation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy 
of which they became a part was created by their 
express agreement, that the agreement has been 
violated, that the union was formed primarily to 
meet the danger of Turkish invasion, and since that 
danger no longer exists, there is no longer reason 
for its continuance. 

The government of the United States took an 
important, though not unprecedented, step when 
on September 2, 1918, it declared "that a state of 
belligerency exists between the Czecho-Slovaks thus 
organized and the German and Austro-Hungarian 
Empires." It also recognized the Czecho-Slovak 
National Council, with headquarters at Washington, 
"as a de facto belligerent Government, clothed with 
proper authority to direct the military and poHtical 
affairs of the Czecho-Slovaks," and expressed its 
willingness "to enter formally into relations with the 
de facto government thus recognized, for the purpose 
of prosecuting the war against the common enemy." 
France, Great Britain, and Italy had already 
recognized the Czecho-Slovak National Council and 
the Czecho-Slovak army. 

The Czechs inhabit Bohemia, Moravia, and 
Austrian Silesia, which under the present constitu- 
tion are parts of the Austrian Empire. The Slovaks 
live in the northern part of Hungary adjoining the 
Czechs on the east and southeast. On the basis of 



64 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

the present movement the boundaries of the new 
state will embrace Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, with 
their historic boundaries, and the northern part of 
Hungary — an area four times as large as that of 
Belgium and including a population of about 
12,000,000. Dr. Masaryk, the President of the 
National Council, has expressed the opinion that a 
constitution would be adopted that would "provide 
for a President and two legislative chambers, a 
Senate and a House of Representatives," similar to 
that of the United States, and also an "elaborate 
system of local self-government, as a means of 
insuring a democracy that is not one in form alone." 
Several important Pan-Slavic Congresses have 
recently been held to further the movement for 
absolute independence from Austria; and at the 
present writing (November, 1918), there are many 
reasons for believing that the Czecho-Slovak move- 
ment will express itself in an independent state. 
Meantime the Slavs of other provinces and states 
both north and south of the Czecho-Slavs are or- 
ganizing for independence and the Hungarians are 
threatening to bring about a complete separation 
from Austria. To what extent the present race 
movements in favor of self-determination and in- 
dependence will be realized is known only to the 
gods; but that the Austro-Hungarian Empire of 
the present will not be the Empire of the future, is 
a foregone conclusion. 



CHAPTER VI 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 

The History of Belgium, 1579-191^ 

The territory now called Belgium was once the 
southern portion of the Netherlands. Its history 
as a separate state may be said to begin in 1579, 
when the southern Netherlands broke away from 
the northern provinces and declared their loyalty 
to the Spanish King. From that time till the fall 
of Napoleon, Belgium was governed successively 
by Spain, Austria, and France. In 1815 the Powers 
at the Congress of Vienna united it with Holland, 
and both states were governed by the Prince of 
Orange, who then took the title of King William I. 

The government under the union, however, was 
more favorable to the Dutch than to the Belgian 
pro^dnces. Dutch, the language of Holland, was 
made the official language, though French was 
quite generally spoken in all of the Belgian provinces. 
The Dutch were generally Protestants; the Belgians, 
Catholics. In fact, the two sections had for 130 
years passed through totally different experiences 
and had drifted apart from each other in character, 

65 



66 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

habits, and ideas; and the Belgians, opposed to the 
union from the start, were each year becoming more 
dissatisfied. 

When the news of the success of the July revolu- 
tion at Paris reached Brussels, riots broke out and 
the Belgians felt that the opportune moment was 
at hand. They rose in revolt and declared their 
independence. 

A Constitution was adopted February 7, 1831, 
which remained practically unchanged for over 
sixty years. It is the oldest written constitution 
still in force on the Continent of Europe except the 
Constitution of the Dutch; and it has generally 
commanded the admiration of students of govern- 
ment. The success of its framers was due to the 
fact that the structure they reared had as its basis 
very little abstract theory and very much sound 
common sense and long-continued usage. It rested 
upon the charters and privileges of the different 
provinces and cities, which dated from the Middle 
Ages and which had never been forgotten or revoked, 
even by Spanish and Austrian oppression. There 
was but one feature in the document which gave 
the liberals concern; suffrage rested on a narrow 
basis. But a movement gradually set in to bring 
about a reform. In 1886 socialism had become an 
important factor in politics, and a reform movement 
was begun which resulted in 1893 in a revision of 
the constitution, granting universal male suffrage. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 67 

At the outbreak of the Great War in July, 1914, 
Germany, contrary to a promise to guarantee the 
neutrahty of Belgium, and contrary to international 
law, invaded Belgium, and on August 20 occupied 
Brussels; October 9th the Germans were in posses- 
sion of Antwerp, and on the 15th of the same month 
they occupied Ostend. The Belgian government 
withdrew to La Havre, France, where it was assured 
protection and the right to exercise all sovereign 
powers. Later Germany took over the civil govern- 
ment of the occupied territory, but the democracies 
of the world assured Belgium that they would 
consider no peace that did not unconditionally 
restore to the Belgians their territory, sovereignty, 
freedom, and independence, and indemnity for the 
great wrong inflicted upon an innocent government.*""'^ 
The events of August, 1914, and their sequel have 
attracted the attention of the world to Belgium; 
and the heroic behavior of its people has won 
universal admiration. Yet history shows that the 
Belgians were a people possessing remarkable 
qualities long before the Great War came to remind 
us of them. Their nobility headed the crusades 
and their common people established the first free 
city life north of the Alps. In the present ordeal 
they have acted greatly because they have greatness 
in them; and their government is worthy of study 
not merely because the first assault upon liberty 
was checked on Belgian soil, but because the Belgian 



68 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

government is one of the best types of the small 
state. 

Government 

Belgium has a constitutional, responsible, and 
parliamentary system of government. In no coun- 
try is the liberty of the citizen better guaranteed, 
and the Constitution throughout breathes the spirit 
of a free people. Not satisfied with the usual 
provisions concerning freedom of speech, press, 
worship, petition, and assembly, the framers of the 
Constitution seemed determined that public opinion 
should under no circumstances be hampered in its 
free development by providing that "no censorship 
shall ever be established." The Constitution was 
drafted by a National Assembly chosen for that 
purpose, but it may be amended by a method rather 
simple; when the legislature decides that an amend- 
ment is advisable, both houses are dissolved and a 
new election is called. If each house of the newly 
elected Congress by a two-thirds vote favors the 
amendment, and it has the approval of the King, it 
becomes a part of the Constitution. 

While Belgium has a King and may properly be 
called a constitutional monarchy, it has in the best 
sense a government of laws and not of men. The 
legislative power is vested in a King, a House of 
Representatives, and a Senate. The members of 
the House are chosen directly by the people and are 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 69 

apportioned among the provinces according to 
population. They are elected, moreover, by a 
system of proportional representation through which 
the minority parties are represented in the lower 
House in proportion to the popular vote cast at the 
election. The term of office is four years, and one 
half of the members are elected every two years. 

The suffrage qualifications are interesting. Every 
male citizen twenty five years of age, who has been 
a resident of the commune for one year, has one 
vote. If he is a married man or widower and thirty 
five years of age and pays five francs in taxes, he 
has two votes. If he is twenty five years of age 
and owns real estate worth 2000 francs, or has an 
income representing a corresponding value, or owns 
government securities paying an interest of 100 
francs, or holds a certificate from an educational 
institution of the higher grade, or is a public office 
holder, he has three votes. But no one has more 
than three votes. Moreover, voting is obligatory. 

The Senate is composed of 120 members elected 
for eight years, partly directly and partly indirectly. 
Twenty-seven of the members are now elected by 
the provincial councils; the remaining number, 
which is equal to one half the number of representa- 
tives, is elected by a direct popular vote by the 
same method employed in the election of members 
to the lower house. 

The executive power is nominally exercised by 



70 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

the King, but he is bound by the Constitution, 
which provides that "he shall have no other powers 
than those which the Constitution and the special 
laws under the Constitution confer upon him." 
The executive powers are actually exercised by a 
council of ministers who together with a number of 
ministers without portfolios, form the Council of 
State, an advisory body convened by the Crown as 
occasion requires. All ministers are appointed, and 
may be dismissed, by the King. They are nearly 
always members of the Senate or House, with the 
right to vote only if they are members. The minis- 
ters are always party leaders, and Belgium has there- 
fore a party government. There have always been 
since 1830 at least two political parties, the Catho- 
lics and Liberals, and all ministries before the out- 
break of the Great War have represented one of 
these parties or a coalition of both. 

For the first fifteen years under the present Con- 
stitution the country was governed by a coalition 
ministry. But in 1846 the parties separated and 
the government has alternated between Liberals 
and Catholics. At the outbreak of the War in 
1914, the Catholic ministry, then in power, made 
itself into a coalition ministry by admitting the 
leaders of the Liberals and Socialists. The division 
between the Catholic and Liberal parties has always 
been and still is primarily religious. The election 
of 1894 — the first after the extension of the franchise 



THE GO^-ERXIMEXT OF BELGIOI 71 

— gave the Socialists for the first time a place in 
Pariiament. They occupied twenty-nine seats, and 
though their number in ParKament is comparatively 
small, they have a remarkable band of intellectual 
leaders, and through the force of their ideas they 
have accomplished much for social reform. 

The Belgian government is extremely sensitive to 
popular reaction; there is nothing whatever either 
in its fundamental law or in its practice and spirit 
that tolerates autocracy. TMiatever may be the 
motives which underHe parties and impel party 
leaders, there is no concession or appeal to royalty. 
The present King is beloved because he is popular, 
not because he belongs to a privileged class. In 
fact, in no other government is executive responsi- 
bility to the popular will so safeguarded as in 
Belgium. The King may not even pardon a minister 
who is sentenced by a court except upon request of 
the two houses of Parliament, and "no decree of the 
King shall take effect unless it is countersigned by a 
minister who, by that act alone, renders himself 
responsible for it." Nor shall any "verbal or 
written order of the King reheve a minister of 
responsibility." Subject to these restrictions, the 
King calls and dismisses Parliament, and appoints 
numerous officials in the administrative and foreign 
services. He is commander-in-chief of the army 
and na\^, declares war, concludes peace, and makes 
treaties, but certain treaties must be approved by 



72 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

both houses. He promulgates all laws and issues 
all regulations necessary for the execution of the 
will of Parliament. In law he has the veto power; 
in practice he does not exercise it, and for obvious 
reasons, for if he did, the executive would not be 
responsible to the people nor to the popular branch 
of government. 

Justice 

The Belgians claim to possess an almost perfect 
code, and indeed their judicial system has received 
so much praise from foreign critics that a word 
concerning the administration of justice may not 
be out of place even in a brief outline of government. 
The courts of law, beginning with the lowest, are: 
justice of the peace, one for each of the 342 cantons; 
next above them are courts of first instance, one in 
each of the 26 arrondissements, each having three 
judges; above these are three courts of appeal, 
sitting in Brussels, Ghent, and Liege; and crowning 
all, is the Court of Cassation or Supreme Court 
which sits at Brussels. This court has a peculiar 
function, since it never tries cases except when a 
minister is accused. It decides in case of doubt in 
what lower court a case shall be tried, and it reviews 
all decisions of the lower courts, whether appealed 
or not, to see if they are in strict accord with the 
code; and if they are not, the verdict is annulled. 
There is only one judge in this court, but he has the 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BELGIUM 73 

assistance of a large staff of reviewers. The presi- 
dent of this court is the highest legal functionary in 
Belgium. Criminal cases are tried in police courts, 
correctional courts, and courts of assize. There 
also are various special courts, but a description of 
their organization, powers, and methods of procedure 
would carry us beyond the scope set for this outline. 

Local Government 

Belgiimi is made up of nine provinces, which are 
subdivided into 26 arrondissements or districts, 342 
cantons, and 2623 communes. The provinces and 
the communes are the chief units for local govern- 
mental purposes; the arrondissements are primarily 
for electoral and judicial districts, and the cantons 
form the areas of the jurisdiction of the justices 
of the peace. The provinces are governed by a 
popularly elected council, which in turn elects a 
board of six members, and by a governor nominated 
by the King. The council represents the local 
interests and the governor forms the connecting 
link between the central and local governments. 

Area, Population, and Language 

Belgium has an area of 11,373 square miles, and 
in 1910 had a population of 7,423,784, or an average 
density of 652 per square mile. The great qualities 
of her people might incline one to forget the small 
area in which her history has been made. The 



74 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

significance of tlie above figures may be appreciated 
by comparison with an American state of average 
area: Ohio has an area of 41,040 square miles, and 
in 1910 had a population of 4,767,121, or an average 
density of 117 per square mile. Brazil in 1900 had 
an average density of population of 5.4 per square 
mile. 

The principal languages spoken by the people of 
Belgium are French, Flemish, and to a much less 
extent, German. In 1900 the extent to which these 
languages were used was as follows: 

French only 2,574,805 

Flemish only 2,822,005 

German only 28,413 

French and Flemish 801,587 

French and German 7,238 

The three languages 42,889 

The racial and linguistic distinctions in Belgium 
at once suggest comparisons with two other states 
where similar conditions prevail — Austrio-Hungary 
and Switzerland. The government and some of 
the problems of the Dual Monarchy have already 
been described. The rule of the Hapsburgs has 
threatened the state with disruption, while in both 
of the small states the people are united. The chief 
reason for this is obvious: in the large state we find 
autocracy; in the two smaller states, liberty. 



CHAPTER VII 
THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 

The History of Brazil, 1500-1891 

To the average person Brazil is still a country 
without a past and noted chiefly because it contains 
the Amazon, dense tropical forests, boa constrictors, 
and anacondas. Yet it has an ancient and exceed- 
ingly interesting history. For the purpose of this 
sketch, however, the history of Brazil begins in 
1500, when a Portuguese navigator, Pedro Alvares 
Cabral, landed not far from the present city of 
Bahia and took possession of the country in the 
name of the King of Portugal. For a time the 
Crown paid little attention to the new possession, 
but about the year 1530 the country was divided 
into hereditary districts called "captaincies" which 
were granted to nobles willing to undertake their 
settlement. The heads of these captaincies were 
given unlimited power of government. Each district 
extended along fifty leagues of coast, the interior 
boundary being undefined. 

Settlements began under this system in the year 
1531; and by 1548 the captaincies had been exploited 

75 



76 DEMOCRA.CY vs. AUTOCRACY 

to such an extent as to call the attention of the 
mother country to the need of a change in govern- 
ment. Each captaincy was independent of the 
others, and the difficulties resulting from this fact, 
together with Spanish rivalry, internal disorder, and 
Indian attacks from without, led to the appointment 
of a Governor-General in 1549. With him came 
the Jesuits, who soon gained control over the 
natives; and to prevent the Indians from being 
enslaved by the colonists, the Jesuits encouraged 
the importation of African slaves who were brought 
into the country in considerable numbers during 
the next two centuries. 

Thus with the advent of a foreign government, 
foreign colonists, and foreign slaves, and the division 
of the country among foreign nobles, there was laid 
the foundation of a new Empire — and of the 
present Republic — so vast in area and fertile in 
resources that it was destined in time to become 
one of the leading powers of the world. It is there- 
fore not strange that this "Land of the Holy Cross," 
as it was first called, should attract the attention 
and stimulate the rivalry of the leading powers of 
Europe, for from 1555 to 1640 the country suffered 
numerous invasions from the French, Dutch, and 
British, who sought to gain a foothold on Brazilian 
soil. But it remained a colony of Portugal until 
1815, when it became an integral part of the King- 
dom of Portugal, Brazil, and Algarves. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 77 

'^Tien in 1807 Napoleon invaded Spain and 
Portugal, the Prince Regent of Portugal, afterwards 
Dom John VI, with his family and court, retired to 
his American colony and made it the center of his 
government. He arrived at Bahia, January 21, 
1808, and opened the ports of the country to the 
commerce of the world. But on the 8th of March 
folloTsdng he changed the seat of government to 
Rio de Janeiro, where he remained until 1821, when 
he returned to Portugal and appointed his eldest 
son, Dom Pedro, regent of Brazil. The change in 
government was not, however, due to the voluntary 
abdication of Dom John. That monarch ruled 
Brazil from the standpoint of Portuguese rather 
than Brazilian interests, and he was not in sympathy 
with the repubHcan principles Hberated by the 
French Revolution. The result was the formation 
of a Brazilian party favorable to independence. 
Dom Pedro was in sympathy with this movement, 
placed himseK at the head of it, and on September 7, 
1822, he formally proclaimed Brazil independent 
of Portugal and was crowned as Emperor of Brazil 
on October 12, 1822. He was a wise ruler, and 
under him Brazil prospered, but in 1831 he abdicated 
in favor of his infant son, Dom Pedro H, who was 
then but five years of age. A regency was appointed 
to govern during his minority; although nine years 
later the legislature disregarded the age of the 
Emperor and declared his majority. 



78 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

On the £3d of July, 1840, at fourteen years of age, 
Dom Pedro II began his long reign, which continued 
until 1889, when the people of Brazil, feeling that 
they had advanced far enough in civilization and 
self-government to dispense with monarchy, pro- 
claimed the present Republic. This revolution was 
one of the most remarkable events in the history of 
the world, for without bloodshed and with little 
disturbance, monarchy was overthrown and a repub- 
lican form of government established. Yet the 
change was more apparent than real, for Brazil 
is no exception to the rule pointed out by Lord 
Bryce in his American Commonwealth, that "great 
institutions which command the obedience and 
respect of mankind are deeply rooted in the past." 
After the establishment of a provisional government, 
a new Constitution was drafted by a commission, 
revised and amended by an elected constituent 
assembly, and adopted February 24, 1891, providing 
for "the Republic of the United States of Brazil." 

The Constitution 

The government of Brazil is closely modelled 
after that of the United States. The Constitution 
provides for a "federal republican representative 
form of government." The wTitten Constitution 
itself, however, while resembling the Constitution of 
the United States in many respects, both in content 
and arrangement, is much longer than the American 



THE GO\'ERXMENT OF BRAZIL 79 

Constitution, and deals with many matters of 
detail which in the United States are left to Con- 
gress. Another important difference is in the 
methods of amendment. The American Constitu- 
tion, it will be remembered, is unique in this respect, 
since it cannot be amended by the legislature as 
most written constitutions of Europe are, but by 
an authority outside of the sphere of the national 
government, that is, by the people acting through 
the states; and it requires for ratification the assent 
of three fourths of the states.^ An amendment to 
the Brazilian Constitution, on the other hand, may 
be ratified, one year after its proposal, by the simple 
act of two-thirds of both houses of Congress. In 
this very important respect the Brazilian Constitu- 
tion resembles more nearly the written constitutions 
of Europe than that of the United States. 

The State Government 

But a written Constitution, whatever its aim or 
purpose may be, is merely an outline of government 
and should not be confused with the actual govern- 
ment itself, which may or may not conform in 
practice to the letter of the Constitution. An 
examination of the Brazilian system itself, however, 
reveals many parallels between the government of 
Brazil and that of the United States. Like the 
United States, Brazil has a general government and 

* See Constitution of United States, Art. V. 



80 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

state governments. There are twenty states, and 
there is one federal district. 

Each state has its own Constitution, its own 
officials, and a very large measure of independent 
authority. It has exclusive control of its public 
lands, mines, industries, and all local affairs. Indeed 
the doctrine of state rights has a legal sanction in 
the Brazilian Constitution carrying with it unusual 
powers. The states may levy export duties on 
goods manufactured within the state; they may 
also levy import duties on goods shipped into the 
state if such goods are intended for consumption 
within the state, but the revenue collected from 
imports must be turned into the federal treasury. 
In this respect the powers of the Brazilian states 
are much more extensive than those of our own 
states; but in the authority of a state over local 
governments, the Brazilian Constitution has an 
important restriction placed upon the states. 
Whereas each of our own states has complete control 
over municipalities, the Brazilian Constitution pro- 
vides that "the states shall organize themselves in 
such a manner as to assure the autonomy of the 
municipalities in all that relates to their particular 
interests." Generally speaking, however, the states 
have all powers not denied them by the federal 
Constitution or granted to the federal government 
in that Constitution. As in our own government 
the tendency in Brazil is toward centralization. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 81 

The General Government 

As in the United States, the general government 
is divided into three departments, the chief organs 
of these departments being a National Congress, a 
President, and a federal Supreme Court. The 
National Congress consists of two houses, the House 
of Deputies and the Senate. The House of Deputies 
is composed of 212 representatives of the people 
elected by a direct popular vote from the states and 
federal district, according to population. The num- 
ber of deputies is fixed by law, but it shall not 
exceed one for every seventy thousand inhabitants, 
but each state shall have at least four deputies. 
They are elected for a term of three years, the only 
qualification being citizenship for more than four 
years and the right to be registered as an elector. 

The Senate is composed of 63 members, three 
senators being elected from each state and three 
from the federal district in the same manner as the 
deputies. In both cases minority representation is 
required by the federal Constitution. Senators 
must be over thirty-five years of age, and citizens 
of Brazil for more than six years. They are elected 
for a term of nine years, one third being renewed 
every three years. 

Congress meets every year on May 3 and must 
continue in session four months; but extra sessions 
may be called by the President. Its general powers 



82 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

in the matter of legislation, and the powers of each 
house separately, are in general similar to those 
of the American Congress, the chief difference be- 
tween the two bodies being that in the Brazilian 
Congress the lower house is elected for three years 
and the upper for nine years, whereas in America 
they are elected for two and six years respectively. 
In addition to the special right of impeachment and 
of originating money bills, exercised by the Ameri- 
can House of Representatives, the Brazilian House 
of Deputies has the exclusive right to initiate pro- 
posals for the adjournment of Congress, for laws 
fixing the strength of land and naval forces, and of 
proposals for discussing recommendations made by 
the executive. 

The executive power is vested in the President, 
who, together with the Vice-President, is elected by 
a direct popular vote for four years; but he cannot 
be reelected for the succeeding term. He must be 
a native of Brazil, thirty-five years of age, and in 
the enjoyment of political rights. If a vacancy in 
the presidency or vice-presidency occurs before two 
years of the term have expired, a new election is 
held. Otherwise the succession to the presidency 
passes from the President to Vice President, the 
Vice President of the Senate, the President of the 
House of Deputies, and the President of the federal 
Supreme Court, in the order named. 

The powers of the President are similar to those 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 83 

of the President of the United States. He appoints 
the members of his Cabinet, seven in number, the 
diplomatic corps, consular agents, judges of the 
Supreme Court, and other civil and military officials, 
with the approval of the Senate. 

The relations of the Cabinet to the President and 
to Congress are also similar to those of the United 
States. The theory of separation of powers is 
prescribed by the Constitution and carried into 
practice. Like the United States, Brazil does not 
have a cabinet or party government like that of 
England, France, and Italy. In fact, parties in 
Brazil do not center around political issues as in 
the other states which we have described, but 
rather around leaders. At present, the nearest 
approach to the party system found in the states 
having party government is in the contest between 
those who favor greater central control and the 
champions of state rights. 

The judicial power is vested in the federal Supreme 
Court, which sits at the capital of the republic, 
and in as many inferior courts as Congress may 
create. The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen 
justices appointed by the President, with the con- 
sent of the Senate; and there is at present one 
federal judge in each state. The latter are also 
appointed by the President, but upon recommenda- 
tion of the Supreme Court. All federal judges hold 
office for life; but members of the Supreme Court 



84 DEMOCRACY vs. AUTOCRACY 

may be removed on impeachment tried by the 
Senate; the inferior federal judges may be removed 
only by a judicial sentence of the Supreme Court. 
An important provision in the Constitution en- 
courages arbitration by providing that Congress 
may "authorize the government to declare war, 
when arbitration has failed or cannot take place." 

Population and Resources 

Brazil is the largest of the South American coun- 
tries, and the second largest of the American re- 
publics. It has an area of 3,290,000 square miles 
and a population of 27,000,000, largely of Portuguese 
descent, and Portuguese is the official and popular 
language. The native aboriginal people have left 
little impress upon the country and are now found 
only in the immense interior. Their number is 
estimated at about 500,000. In the northern areas 
there is an intermixture of blood with the Africans, 
imported in the early history of Brazil to form the 
working population. In the southern states there 
are about 400,000 Germans, and in the central 
states 1,500,000 Italians. The number of Spanish 
descent is estimated at 400,000. These different 
races make up the population of to-day. The 
capital, Rio de Janeiro, has a population of 
1,500,000. 

Brazil has a coast line of over 5000 miles with 
many fine harbors, and an extensive commerce 



THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL 85 

wdth all the principal countries of the world. The 
exports in 1916 were $257,000,000, and the unports, 
$195,000,000. The chief exports are coffee, rubber, 
herva matte, hides, cacao, tobacco, cotton, and 
sugar; the chief imports are food products, machin- 
ery, steel and iron, textiles, woods, pelts, and skins. 
Brazil was the first American colony to make 
agriculture the chief aim of colonization, and that 
industry still holds first place in the industries of 
the republic. The first raihoad was built in 1854; 
and in 1914 there were over 14,000 miles in operation. 
About one-fourth of the railways are owned by the 
states, one-seventh by the federal government, and 
one-third are owned by the federal government and 
leased. The rest are concessions to private concerns 
granted by the federal government. Steamship 
lines connect the principal ports of Brazil with those 
of the United States and Europe. Fifty trans- 
Atlantic lines are registered as touching Brazilian 
ports. 

The peace strength of the regular army is about 
32,000 men. The war strength exceeds 300,000 
men. The navy consists of 57 vessels with a 
complement of 13,000 men. 

Public education is secular, but there are many 
private schools. Education is supported by the 
federal and state governments and there are also 
municipal schools. Some states have compulsory 
education. The church is entirely divorced from 



86 DEMOCRACY vs, AUTOCRACY 

the state. With its splendid history, its democratic 
government, its wealth of resources, its free system 
of public schools, and its liberty-loving and progres- 
sive people, Brazil, already a great world power, 
will indeed be a potent factor in making and keeping 
the world safe for democracy. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Information concerning modern foreign governments may be gained 
from various som-ces: (1) modern histories, (2) collections of funda- 
mental laws and constitutions, (3) standard textbooks on government, 
(4) general and special cyclopedias, (5) year-books or annuals giving 
the latest information and (6) periodicals. The following list covers 
these six sources and is designed to meet the ordinary reference require- 
ments of the student unacquainted with foreign languages. 

Histories 

Cambridge Modern History, vol. xi. The Growth of Nationahties. 

N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1909. 
Hayes, C. J. H. A PoHtical and Social History of Modem Europe. 

2 vols. N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1916. 
Hazen, C. D. Europe Since 1815. N. Y. Holt. 1910. 
Robinson and Beard, The Development of Modern Europe, 2 vols. 

Boston. Ginn & Co. 1907-8. 
Cooper, C. S. The BraziHans and Their Country. N. Y. F. A. 

Stokes. 1917. 
Essen, L. Van der. A Short History of Belgium. Chicago. University 

of Chicago Press. 1916. 
Ogg, F. A. Social Progress in Contemporary Europe. N. Y. Mac- 

miUan Co. 1917. 

Documents 

Dodd, W. F. Modern Constitutions. 2 vols. Chicago. Chicago 
University Press. 1909. 

"A collection of fundamental laws of twenty-two of the most important countries of 
the world, with historical and bibliographical notes." 

Textbooks and Descriptions of Governments 

Burgess, J. W. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. 
2 vols. Boston. Ginn & Co. 1890-91. 

87 



88 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Lowell, A. L. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe. 2 vols. 
Boston. Houghton Mifflin Co. 1900. 

Lowell, A. L. The Government of England. New edition, 2 vols. 
N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1912. 

Macy and Gannaway. Comparative Free Government. N. Y. Mac- 
millan Co. 1915. 

Ogg, F. A. Governments of Europe. N. Y. Macmillan Co. 1913. 

WUson, Woodrow. The State. N. Y. D. C. Heath & Co. 1898. 

Beard, C. A. American Government and Politics. N. Y. Macmillan 
Co. 1916. 

Bryce, James. South America — Observations and Impressions. N. Y. 
Macmillan Co. 1912. 

Bryce, James. American Commonwealth. 2 vols. N. Y. Mac- 
miUan Co. 1910. 

Encyclopedias 

Encyclopedia Britannica, The New International, Cyclopedia of Ameri- 
can Government (primarily for American government). 

Annuals 

The (English) Statesman's Year-Book, Whitaker's Almanack, The New 
Hazell Annual and Almanack, Almanack de Gotha: annuaire genea- 
logique, diplomatique, et statistique and the Brazilian Year-Book are 
typical examples of this source of information. Similar annuals are 
published for nearly all foreign countries and are invaluable for the 
latest information upon government, parties, elections, ministries, 
population, industries, and social statistics. The two leading Ameri- 
can annuals are The New International Year-Book, and The American 
Year-Book. 

Periodicals 

Among the periodicals the following combination is suggested as 
covering an adequate range of current political information and at the 
same time stimulating independent and critical thought. American: 
The Nation, a weekly accompanied with a valuable bi-weekly section 
on International Relations; The New Republic; The New York Times 
Current History, a monthly magazine; The American Review of Reviews; 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 

The American Journal of International Law; and the American Political 
Smence B^triew. English: The Nation, The Spectntor, The New Statesman 
and the Saturday Review are among the leading weekhes, whHe among 
the monthHes and quarterhes the Contemporary Review, Nineteenth 
Century, Edinburgh Review, Quarterly Review, and FoHnightly Review 
are_ aU very exceUent. Xo list of periodicals, however brief, should 
omit the famous French Revue des Deux Mondes. 



INDEX 

Act of Settlement 1701, 9. 
Alsace-Lorraine, 33. 

American Constitution, 7, 8. 

American government, 7. 

Ausgleich, Austro-Hungarian, 45. 

Austria, government of, 50-56; history of, 37-41. 

Austrian Empire, constitution of, 50; Emperor, power of, 51; House of 

Representatives, 53; local government, 55-5Q; ministers, 51-52; 

parliamentary system, 52; parties in, 54; Reichsrat, 52-53; 

states in, 45. 
Austria-Hungary, 36-64; boundary, 60; common government, 47-49; 

delegations, 48; population, 60. 
Autocracy, dangers of, 2. 

Babenberg, Leopold of, 38. 

Baden, 33. 

Bavaria, 33. 

Belgium, area, 73; constitution of, 68; executive power, 69-70; Ger- 
man occupation of, 67; government of, 65-74; history of, 65-67; 
House of Representatives, 68, 69; justice, 72-73; language, 74; 
local government, 73; parties in, 71; population, 73; Senate, com- 
position of 69; suffrage, 69. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37, 50. 

Brazil, army, 85; Cabinet, 83; Congress, 81; Constitution, 78-79; 
education, 85; executive power, 82; exports, 85; general govern- 
ment of, 81-83; history of, 75-78; imports, 85; judicial power, 
83; navy, 85; population, 84; resources, 84; Senate, 81; state 
governments, 79-80. 

Cabinet, American, 10; Austrian, 52; Austro-Hungarian, 48; Eng- 
lish, 10; French, 17; German, 32; Italian, 22, 23. 
Captaincies in Brazil, 75. 

91 



92 INDEX 

Cavour, Count, 20. 

Charles V, Emperor, 38. 

Compromise, Austro-Hungarian, 45. 

Confederation, North German, 29; Rhine, 41. 

Congress of Vienna, 28. 

Croatia, 58. 

Czecho-Slovaks, national council, 62; recognition of, 63. 

Czechs, location of, 63. 

Dalmatia, 58. 
Deak, Francis, 44. 
Democracy, defined, 1-3. 

Emanuel, Victor, 20. 

English government, 8-14; Cabinet, 10; chief organs of government, 
9-10; constitution compared with American, 7, 8; growth of 
constitution 8-9; sources of, 8-9; King, powers of, 10; House of 
Commons, 11, 12; House of Lords, 10; Parliament Act of 1911, 11; 
political parties, 12, 13; Prime Minister, 13; Representation of 
People Act 1918, 12; suffrage, 11, 12; War Cabinet, 14. 

Flemish, 74. 

French government, 15-18; Cabinet, 17; Chamber of Deputies, 18; 
Constitution of, 15; departments, 18; ministry, 17; National 
Assembly, 15; organs of government, 15; parties, 19; President of 
the Republic, 16, 17; Senate, 17-18. 

Franco-Prussian War, 29. 

Functions of government, 4. 

German empire, 26-35; based on inequality, 29-30; Bundesrat, 30, 
33; Chancellor, 32; chief organs of government, 31; defects of 
government, 28; emperor, powers of, 32; Foreign minister quoted, 
27, 28; imperial constitution of, 29; King of Prussia, 31; Reichs- 
tag, 34; name of, 29; North German Confederation, 29; Presi- 
dent Wilson quoted on, 26; Prussian delegation, 34; responsibility 
in, 35. 

Golden Bull of 1222, 42. 



INDEX 93 

Govemment, source of power in, 2; principles determining character of, 
4-6; relation of central to local, 5. 

Habeas Corpus Act 1679, 9. 
Hamburg, 33. 
Hapsburg, House of, 38. 
Hesse, 33. 

Holy Roman Empire, 41. 

Hungary, Constitution of, 57; government of, 56-58; history of, 41-45; 
legislative power, 57; local government of, 58; provincial govem- 
ment of, 58; states in, 45; Table of Magnates, 57. 

Ireland, union with England, 9. 

Italy, 20-25; Chamber of Deputies, 24, 25; chief organs of govem- 
ment, 21; history of, 20-21; King, powers of, 21-22, 24; ministry, 
21, 22, 23; parliamentary system, 25; Parliament, composition of, 
24; parties, 22-23; Senate, 24; Statuto, 21; suffrage, 25. 

Karlowitz, peace of, 39. 
Kossuth, Louis, 44. 

Leopold of Babenberg, 38. 
Liibeck, 33. 

Magna Carta, 9. 

Magyars, 37, 41. 

Maria Theresa, 39, 

Masaryk, Thomas G., 62, 64. 

Masimihan I, 38. 

Mecklenberg-Schwerin, 33. 

Metternich, Prince, 39-40, 44. 

Moravians, 37. 

Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, 9. 

Napoleon, 20. 

NationaHty, principle of, 43. 

North Ministry, fall of, 27. 



94 INDEX 

Ottokar, Duke, 38. 
Ottoman Turks, 36-37. 

Parliament Act of 1911, 11. 
Petition of Right, English, 9. 
Pragmatic Sanction, 50. 
Prussia, position of in Empire, 30. 

Races in Austria-Hungary, 59. 
Reform Acts, English, 9. 
Representation of the People Act 1918, 9. 
Reichstag, German, 34. 

Sardinia, Kingdom of, 21. 

Savoy, House of, 20. 

Saxony, 33. 

Scotland, union with England, 9. 

Self-determination, 59, 64. 

Slavonia, 58. 

Statesman's Year-Book, 14. 

Suleiman II, 37. 

Titles of Austrian rulers, 40-41. 

"Wilson, President, on war aims, 1. 
Wiirttemberg, 33. 



pm 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 795 336 1 



